Regulations vs. Social Action

The two actors I have previously discussed, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Compost Crusaders, both approach air quality differently in Milwaukee. Despite their differences, the diversity of tactics is necessary for addressing such a widespread problem such as air pollution. Both actors do have strengths and limitations with their regulations and initiatives, such as any, but are able to cooperate with other actors in the area to implement action and address air quality issues.

In regards to the EPA and their air quality initiatives, they are regulatory by the nature of their governmental position. Although addressing problem

s through governmental regulation isn’t always praised, it deserves credit for initiating action against the depletion of the air quality. Regulations are a good starting point to draw attention to issues stemming from industry and corporations— areas that civilians have little power. In the case of the EPA’s involvement, it is important to consider one of the eight hypotheses presented in the concluding chapter, that governance requires political vision. In order to successfully govern, with regulatory action or social action, society absolutely needs attainable goals. By placing this role on politicians, not only will goals be created, but also a trustworthy figure is created to harness support and to legitimize governmental policy and regulatory decisions. Without a guiding hand, such as the EPA in regards to environmental protection, society does not have a structure to further elaborate and progress off of. Another applicable hypothesis provided by Evans is that governments matters. They shape markets, provide political visions, and legitimize through policies they enact. If the government isn’t addressing major issues, who is? Those who are talking about issues, do they have the power necessary to address such problems? The EPA provides a solid structure for further action.

Although the EPA is a great starting point for addressing air quality problems, it is not enough to get citizens on board to become concerned or inspired. furthermore, social activism is absolutely necessary to make a real impact on a problem such as air quality, stemming from so many sources. As I discussed in my previous post, Compost Crusaders is a network based social organization to expand the practice of composting. They work directly with the community to reach their goal and on the site they list their major customers; BelAir, Transfer Pizza, Beans and Barley, Café Corazon, the Riverwest Coop, Odd Duck, Lakefront Brewing, Outpost, Braise, and a few others. These businesses are often images of environmentally responsible entities, and have gained prestige in environmental awareness. Because they are able to construct a social appeal to composting, composting in a way becomes a business tactic, allowing other businesses to voluntarily step forward and hop on the composting bandwagon. With high hopes, people will see the number of compost bins within the community and will normalize it into their lives, maybe caring more or educating themselves about composting and its benefits.

It is a tricky subject to address, because when it comes down to it, air quality and the lack of action stems from ignorance. Not enough people are aware of the implications of industrial emissions, vehicle emissions, or landfill gases. Citizens are not aware that landfill gases have regulations and strict procedures in place by the EPA, or even know why this would be necessary (I know I didn’t!). Because of this, educational efforts, often associated with social organizations such as Compost Crusaders, is crucial. So, in the case of government regulations,they seem most successful with large corporations who do not deal with local impacts. But on a smaller scale, regulations are causes for resentment. On the local scale, social initiatives must take place by a voluntary participatory method, as well as education which is needed to ensure cooperation and commitment. 

Referring back to the eight hypotheses discussed by Evans, getting the mix of approach right is critical. One could argue air quality is a wicked problem, which in turns needs an extremely diverse set of methods to address it. As Evans says, « a single mode would be counter productive as problems are too complex and require a varied degree of solutions and methods ». This is exactly what we see in the issues encompassing air quality, where numerous and diverse actors are working to implement action. And most importantly, Evans mentions that Governance is about learning. A statement he made that really made me think was that «  both science and capitalism have problems dealing with non-linear changes ». This is clearly true, and supports the fact that a mix of approaches is needed to tackle this problem. 

Compost Crusaders

Air quality issues are seemingly difficult to rally support for. Maybe because it’s hard to visibly see the problem, difficult to witness improvements on the problem, or simply because there’s a lack of physicality that one could hold sentiment for. Because of this, NGO’s that strictly focus on air quality in Milwaukee are difficult to come by! But getting creative and thinking a little outside the box, while following the theme of my previous posts, I’ve come to realize that composting plays a large role in air quality!

So, I present to you Compost Crusaders, a Milwaukee NGO concerned with recycling of organic materials in a responsible fashion. Their goal is to divert 50-75% of organic material for the landfill waste stream. 

So the real question, how does reducing organic materials in landfills relate to air quality?

As the EPA says, 

« Organic waste in landfills generates methane, a potent greenhouse gas. By composting wasted food and other organics, methane emissions are significantly reduced. » (http://www2.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/reducing-impact-wasted-food-feeding-soil-and-composting)

So, organizations like Compost Crusaders, despite not being directly related, works with the social aspects of air quality issues. Composting is an activity than can be advertised, branded, trended, sold to the public as an environmentally friendly initiative. It’s seems difficult to gather support for air quality, but composting has a side that appeals the public.

Like I discussed in my previous post, the Sierra Club is a huge advocate for composting to address landfill gas issues. The Sierra Club does not support burning of landfill gas, and emphasize that efforts should be devoted to reducing organic material in landfills instead. But, I do think both burning landfill gas and composting are important methods for handling landfill gas and the air pollution it causes. Landfill gas, specifically methane in this case, diminishes our air quality and contributes to global climate change, but is a widely complex issue that requires both government and social action. 

The Compost Crusaders’ efforts are drastically different than those of the EPA in targeting landfill gas issues. The Compost Crusaders are taking a collaborative approach, that could also be defined as a network mode of governance. They are community orientated, and their goal is to work with schools, restaurants, grocers, and municipalities to promote organic recycling. In addition to community collaboration, they also work with other organizations in Milwaukee to fulfill and promote their goals. Kompost Kids (another composting NGO), City of Milwaukee Recycling, US Composting Council, the EPA, and Natural Milwaukee are other organizations that also work towards composting efforts. This network of organizations has the scope to influence various sectors of society to join composting efforts. 

A NGO such as Compost Crusaders that targets a social problem (the act of composting) is in some ways more effective than the EPA command-control regulations. Because they are a local organization, they have more opportunity to gather local support, as voluntary composting is more appealing than strict regulations such as ones the EPA must administer to achieve progress. In the case of the Compost Crusaders, participation is 100% voluntary. No one is forced to compost, adding a sense of social progress to involved community members. I think this is more successful and powerful in terms of changing social mindsets of the community. When people have the option to make change and do something good, support spreads a lot faster than legal obligations. 

Check out these links to find out more about Milwaukee composting efforts: 

http://www.compostcrusader.com/

http://compostingcouncil.org/

http://www.naturalmilwaukee.com/MILW/Green-Living/

http://www.milwaukeerecycles.com/

http://kompostkids.org/

https://teamster.org/sites/teamster.org/files/6310GreenhouseGasReportrevisedlowres.pdf

Wisconsin Clean Transportation Program

Wisconsin Clean Transportation Program (WCTP) was a 4 year initiative to reduce petroleum consumption and to reduce emissions by increasing the amount of alternative fuel vehicles. WCTP was a program held from 2009 to 2013; it proved to hold great success with minor limitations. In terms of improving Wisconsin's air quality, implementing a program to help shift transportation methods would help greatly in reducing the amount of harmful emissions into the air and increase air quality and public health.

In 2009, U.S. Department of Energy's Clean Cities was awarded 300 million dollars in the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act to fund 25 cost-share projects around the country. Wisconsin State Energy Office (SEO) had the privilege of being awarded with 15 million dollars. SEO decided to partner with Wisconsin Clean Cities (WCC) and 53 businesses, companies, industries, or agencies around the state. All these actors volunteered to collaborate and join the program to shifting towards better means of transportation. 

So this program's goals was to reduce emissions and petroleum use, to increase alternative fuel uses, and it was aimed to maximize preservation and creation of jobs by investing in these alternative technologies. It allowed for increase in revenues and increase in the opportunities for growth in WI. 

The partners had the option to choose what kind of alternative fuels they wanted to expand on. They chose from bio-diesel, compressed natural gas, electric, ethanol to hybrid heavy duty class 8 trucks, hybrid & plug-in hybrid electric school buses or electric bucket trucks. The increased alternative technologies were manufactured in the U.S. and some of the manufacturers were located in Wisconsin. Some of them included: Cummins, ANGI Energy Systems, Odyne Systems, IMPCO, and General Motors. 

The partners included in this program were a wide range of actors. Milwaukee County, Marquette University, Go Riteaway Bus, Transit Express, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Milwaukee Metro Sewerage District (MMSD), and WE Energies just to name a few of them. WE energies was awarded with 1,262,291 dollars in funding; they bought 3 light-duty CNGs, and 3 transportation companies, allowing for them to purchase alternative fueling, too. MMSD was awarded with 95,371 dollars and purchased 9 light-duty CNG vehicles, 1 medium-duty, 6 light HEV and 6 HEVS. One more example is Milwaukee County purchased 4 PHEV utility trucks which turned out to be a huge cost saver. 

As a whole, MCTP turned about to be a great success. It displaced over 1.6 million gallons of petroleum by the year 2013.This program was featured at 163 events in WI throughout the 4 years. It allowed for 19 private alternative fuel stations and 3 public access alternative stations to be installed across the state ,and it deployed a total of 377 alternative vehicles on the road. It had small limitations throughout the initiative from a supply and demand problem to vehicle reliability and performance issues including some vehicles that were deemed inefficient in our cold winters. 

 

There was a consistency in the roles of SEO and MCC. SEO had important managing duties ,and WCC handled the outreach efforts. I think SEO, MCC, and the various partners worked collaboratively to significantly implement more alternative vehicles and have less impact on Wisconsin's air quality and environment. This program has had a great impact on all the actors and they all continue to be a part of programs and initiatives to improve air quality. One project MCC is currently working on is a Forwarding Wisconsin's Fuel Choice. 

Going on a tangent, on a current agenda, another program on reducing emissions I found that I wanted to mention was the California Environmental Protection Agency. They have the California Air Resources Board (ARB) have a significant vehicle emissions research program that leads multi-agency research programs to characterizing vehicle emissions. Their goals are to understand the real-world effects of the current regulations and to inform the development of new regulations. Part of their research includes remote sensing devices that are capable of measuring real-world vehicle emissions and their impact on the air quality. From my eyes, this research program is working on some really neat stuff, hopefully in the near future, it will have success in improving emissions testing, emissions regulations and reducing amount being released into the atmosphere. And, too, I hope more programs and initiatives occur in Wisconsin to improve our emissions tests and regulations to overall keep working on and implementing programs to better the air quality.  

Sources:

wicleancities.org  

ca.gov

google.images.com

The Clean Air act and the Clean Power Plan

“the Super Bowl of climate politics.”

Coalbot 27, an industry lobbyist, who also moonlights as Fox Sports official Football Robot

 The Clean Air Act was originally passed in 1963, and then had major amendments in 1970, 1977, and 1990. It is a US federal law created to regulate air pollution and the effects it has on our communities and the surrounding environment. The 1970 amendments are considered the most important, granting enforcement powers and regulations against industrial air pollution, in conjunction with the creation of the EPA.

Why is the Super Bowl of climate politics coming to a court room near you?

Justices Alito and Scalia

 In 2007 a group of states sued the EPA( Massachusetts vs. EPA), claiming that it was abdicating its responsibility under the Clean Air Act by not regulating greenhouse gas emissions from new automobiles. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf

The Supreme Court agreed, and ordered the EPA to "ground its actions or inaction within the statue" (Clean Air Act) which led to the 2009 endangerment finding.

It was a landmark decision and a giant rebuke for President Bush at the time. Shortly after that decision another ruling was given on Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corp, which helped create even more precedent for what we are seeing now. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-848.pdf

In some of my favorite language from the former ruling, the EPA claims that any harm to the state of of Massachusetts would be small and incremental. The justices then proclaimed that rarely do regulations solve a problem in one fell swoop. It is indeed the incrementalism of regulation that closes in on the problem.

The Duke ruling also has the EPA joining forces with non governmental actors against the power company.

Fast forward to now, and the CAA showdown for these new rulings. The new rulings are part of the Clean Power Plan.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/energy/states-reactions-to-proposed-epa-greenhouse-gas-emissions-standards635333237.aspx

There has been a policy explosion in regards to these new rules. The state bills and state resolutions being passed are mostly in opposition to the new rules. See the link above.
If you want to laugh at the Texans, note that one of their state resolutions states that they refuse to recognize EPA regulations without congressional legislation, even though the Clean Air Act is congressional legislation. It failed.

These states have joined together in a lawsuit against the new rules:
Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

It is important to note that the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the cross state contaminant rule, the rule mentioned in the NYT article. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1182_553a.pdf
  
 
The sheer amount of legislators, lobbyists, environmental groups, government agencies, and other actors are building this battle to be "the Super Bowl" of climate politics.
Because the projected cost for compliance has been estimated in the billions of dollars. Many jobs are expected to go up in smoke. Rolling blackouts are predicted. It's as if these normally cornucopia style neo-liberal economic environmentalists are taking their devil horns off and wearing the the old saggy trousers of the neo-malthuesian. They present a doom and gloom scenario. Environmentalists hail this plan as a landmark ruling in the fight to slow down the effects of climate change. Even though this plan has global implications, health and air quality will be greatly affected at local levels due to the reduction of the 6 pollutants mentioned by the EPA.
The reason for the large cost is the requirement of sharp reductions of those 6 pollutants by power plant companies. The goal is to reduce emissions of these by 30% (of 2005 levels) by 2030.
For more information: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-10-23/pdf/2015-22842.pdf

Map above us: A quick glance at the 24 states involved in the lawsuit and where they are at with compliance policy. Note the grey states. I bet one could have some fun finding parallels with other extreme positions or policy within the same borders.

Landfill Gases; Regulations and Emission Solutions

Landfill Methane Outreach Program

The Landfill Methane Outreach Program of the Environmental Protection Agency deals with landfill gas issues and concerns. Although it encompasses a complex set of rules and regulations, the main requirement is that landfills must recover and combust these gases instead of allowing them to seep into the soil and the air. With this, the EPA hopes to reduce emissions from landfills, as Methane is one of the worst gases for the atmosphere and global climate change. This began in 1996 with the EPA’s Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources (NSPS) and later the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), seeking to require landfills to collect these gases and combust them to reduce emissions. In addition to this regulation, NESHAP and NSPS, also require « gas collection systems [to] be well–designed and well-operated. » (EPA, Public Health, Safety, and the Environment). Through this, the EPA requires landfills to monitor surface methane emissions, ensuring that they are properly collecting the gas. 

Also, as part as the EPA’s criteria for municipal solid waste landfills, they state that, 

(b) Open burning of solid waste, except for the infrequent burning of agricultural wastes, silvicultural wastes, land clearing debris, diseased trees, or debris from emergency cleanup operations, is prohibited at all MSWLF units (EPA, Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills)

Delving more into this issue, methane is one of the most common gases found in landfills, amongst various others. Methane is especially troublesome because it is 25 times more effective at trapping heat than carbon dioxide, making it a worrisome gas for the atmosphere (EPA, Public Health, Safety, and the Environment). According to energyjustice.net/lfg, landfills are the second largest manmade contributor to methane emissions, therefore much attention have been placed on reducing or combusting these emissions to reduce their impact. 

But despite methane’s prevalence in landfill gas composition, it is not the only gas, and usually makes up only 40-60% (energy justice). Methane comes from decomposing organic materials, such as food scraps and yard waste. Other gases are often found at landfills such as carbon dioxide and smaller traces of water vapor, nitrogen, and oxygen, amongst others.

Methane is of particular concern because it is 25 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (EPA, Public Health, Safety, and the Environment).

So to target this issue, the EPA has required combustion of these gases. This is possible through several methods, all with benefits and drawbacks, but most importantly combusting instead of releasing these organic gases generally reduces landfill emissions. Options include methods such as;

-flare it (flame)

-boiler - makes heat rather than electricity 

-internal combustion engine - makes electricity (dirtiest) 

-gas turbine - makes electricity

-fuel cell - makes electricity (expensive, experimental, but potential for very clean conversion)

-convert the methane to methyl alcohol

-clean it up enough to pipe it to other industries or into the natural gas lines (would add contaminants to natural gas)

(list found at http://www.energyjustice.net/lfg)

Despite such positive efforts from the EPA to reduce gas emissions from landfills, there has been pushback from the Sierra Club, and surely not the only environmental organization. To begin, their publication title started with « PUBLIC BEWARE », so one can only assume that this organization is going to be a tad bit dramatic about the situation. They proceed to argue against the requirement to combust these gases, instead, they argue, that the focus should be placed on reducing these gases in the first place. They claim that landfill energy is very dirty by nature, despite it being an economical use of this energy otherwise wasted, the Sierra Club denounces the praise that landfill gas has received for being a « green energy ». Their solution?  To focus on organic recycling! by doing so less yard waste and food scraps will go to landfills, in turn directly reducing landfill gases, methane especially. Although I personally agree with their solution, it think it is a lot more difficult to implement compared to more policy based initiatives like the combustion of landfill gas requirement. For more information from the Sierra Club; (https://teamster.org/sites/teamster.org/files/6310GreenhouseGasReportrevisedlowres.pdf)

So how does this relate to my previous post?

Well, I focused on the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) and their use of landfill gas to power their operations at the Jones Island Water Reclamation site. Although it is neat that MMSD uses a resource to make energy that would be otherwise flared, it is interesting to see how they pride themselves on being « green » with this energy source, but as the Sierra Club begs to differ, is not all what it cracks up to be.  

Check out the links below for more info! 

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=a6fe953e6112a11842fff12dbc6b4822&mc=true&node=pt40.25.258&rgn=div5#se40.25.258_124

http://www3.epa.gov/lmop/faq/public.html#07-c

http://www.energyjustice.net/lfg

https://teamster.org/sites/teamster.org/files/6310GreenhouseGasReportrevisedlowres.pdf

Emissions Standards And Testing

In more recent centuries, there has been a rise in concern for improvement in air quality especially in regards to the public health and protecting the environment. This entails us to decrease the amount of air pollution by ultimately implementing specific laws, regulations, government policies and overall "rules" in which actors have to obey by.

Probably one of or the most known modern, federal law in the United States concerning air quality is the Clean Air Act (CAA). From their four decade and ongoing track record, CAA was first established in 1963 to regulate and control emissions; throughout the years, they have created several amendments and added various programs to better regulate emissions in the U.S.


Specifically, CAA authorized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), known as the "regulatory agency", to develop and enforce emission standards. CAA authorizes EPA to achieve emission standards by establishing National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in the states along with state implementation plans (SIPS). EPA has put in place a wide variety of emission standards for mobile sources such as cars and trucks to non-mobile sources to reduce carbon dioxide and other hazardous air pollutants. To learn more about EPA's specific emission regulations in what is known as the Code of Federal Regulations, where manufacturers must follow test procedures, you can read this link (http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=160c067fb376f877ea61c20bfb974fbc&mc=true&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl). EPA uses an integrated approach by working and collaborating with manufacturers. Also, manufacturers have to meet standards within a certain timeframe ,and these standards too can push manufacturers to improve their designs on vehicles and the engines.

The main aspect of EPA's regulations I would like to focus on are the Engine Testing Regulations and more so Vehicle Testing Regulations. Original regulations for engine testing was implemented in 2002 ranging all kinds of engines from marine diesel, recreational to heavy-duty highway and non-road stationary and spark-ignition engines. The original regulation for Vehicle Testing Regulations where first adopted in 2011 which includes heavy-duty and light-duty vehicles. EPA's overall goal when it comes to emissions regulations and testing is to identify any engines that do not comply with the emission standards and to then make sure they are fixed by the manufacturer.

Now, there are different regulations for each state and some states do not have actually have any which I was quite surprised. In the Midwest, Michigan and Minnesota do not have any state regulations, while Wisconsin has specific ones.  For more information on vehicle emission inspection requirements for each state, you can read this. (http://www.semasan.com/page.asp?content=emissions&g=semaga.)

To go in more depth about Wisconsin's regulations, there is the Wisconsin Vehicle Inspection Program specifically dealing with emission issues in Southeastern WI. The DNR are the ones who set the emission for the WisconsinVIP (WVIP) ,and then the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) administers, notifying the vehicle owners when emission tests are required. Tests are required before registration renewal, after transfer of ownership or after registering in Wisconsin. For precise regulations, I have them listed below.

Vehicles require an emissions test based on:

• Vehicle location
  Vehicles customarily kept in one of the seven southeastern Wisconsin counties of Kenosha, Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine, Sheboygan, Washington and Waukesha.
• Certain vehicles
  Autos and light trucks model years 1996 to 2006 that have a gross vehicle rating up to 8,500 pounds, not including diesel powered vehicles.
  Autos and light trucks model years 2007 and newer which have a gross vehicle rating up to 14,000 pounds, including diesel powered vehicles.
• Certain regular occasions
  After a transfer of ownership (transfer of plates or new plates issued).
  After first registering in Wisconsin.
  Before renewing registration (biennial testing, see below for details).
• Certain non-regular occasions
  When identified as having tampered emissions equipment.
  When identified with fraudulent vehicle location information.
  Government vehicles when designated by the department.

Exempt vehicles

• The following vehicles are exempt from emissions requirements (except for vehicles identified as having tampered emissions equipment):
  
  • Vehicles manufactured before 1996.
  • Vehicles manufactured after 1996 that are not OBDII-compliant (must be verified at a test station).
  • Diesel powered vehicles with a model year 2006 and older.
  • Motorcycles and mopeds.
  • Vehicles with a registered gross weight over 14,000 lbs.
  • Trucks with farm registration.
  • Electric powered vehicles.
  • Note: Hybrid vehicles (that use both electric power and gasoline or diesel fuel) are subject to emissions inspection.
  • Non-motorized vehicles.
  • School buses and human service vehicles with seating capacity of 16 or more people.
  • Vehicles registered as special design vehicles, Medal Of Honor and apportioned plates

Recently, the Volkswagen car company has been cheating their emissions tests by having a safety mode on the computer device, showing it looks better than what it actually does on the road.
( http://www.businessinsider.com, http://www.nytimes.com) Another problem pertaining to emissions testing is that some studies show that there are differences between the emissions of a car in an emissions tests and driving on the road.
There are debates whether the emissions tests are effective or not. In terms of improving air quality, I believe CAA, EPA, and the states are progressively trying to improve and implement additional programs that is a great effort to reducing air pollution, increase well being of our society and improving/protecting our environment.

Sources:
-http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/reduce-emissions/the-clean-air-act.html#.VjlJ4sKFPVK
-http://www.meca.org/regulation/the-us-environmental-protection-agencys-motor-vehicle-compliance-program
-http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Air_Act
-http://www.epa.gov/
-google.com/images
-http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/dmv/vehicles/rnew-plts/emissiontest.aspx