Hello friends, it's the Environment Show and welcome. Clean Air Plan for East Coast held
up by EPA. A 12-state consortium has submitted to EPA a plan of action to achieve cleaner
air but the federal agency has no decision yet. One counter-proposal could affect the entire
nation, the cars of the future are now. And for West Virginia, the Canaine Valley Wildlife
Refuge, the 500th to be added to the federal system.
So it is the highest valley of its size, east of the Rockies. It is the largest wetland
in West Virginia and the largest wetland in the central and southern Alligainy Mountains.
The Environment Show, a national production, made possible by Hemings MotorNews, the monthly
Bible of the old Car Hobby 1-800-CAR-H-E-R-E. And by the J.M. Kaplan Fund of New York, this
is Bruce Robertson.
The wheels of government grind exceeding slow. Nearly a year ago, 12 states in the northeast
and mid-Atlantic region working together in what is known as the OTC, the Ozone Transport
Commission, submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington a plan to reduce
regional air pollution. The plan would pressure the auto industry to supply low emission
vehicles, LEVs and ZEVs or zero emission vehicles, electric cars. The EPA had nine months
to rule whether the plan was compatible with goals of the Clean Air Act. The November 10
deadline for decision came and went, and no phone calls or special delivery mail from
the EPA. Trudy Cox is Secretary of Environmental Affairs in the State of Massachusetts, one of
the states of the OTC.
We are hoping that EPA will come to its senses. There's a very important reason why we think
actually too, why we think a low emission vehicle is necessary. Number one is again,
because the current cars that are being manufactured still represent about 50% of the air pollution
problems that we are encountered with. Secondly, we have an obligation as a result of the
Clean Air Act to find a way to reduce our pollution sources. As a state regulator, each one
of us has to find somebody to go after. We've seen tremendous strides made on the utility
front. There's not a whole lot more, at least in Massachusetts, that our utilities can
do. They've already spent a tremendous amount of money and lowered their pollution
missions substantially. We've put a lot of pressure on the manufacturing sector. There's
resistance, I think, on the part of the public to require people to carpool and to mass transit.
And so that almost becomes, you know, nobody wants to be told that they can't use their
barbecue. That may work in California. It's not going to work in this part of the country.
So you go after the utilities, you go after the manufacturers, you ask individuals to make
some sacrifices and yet we still have air pollution problems. That leaves the car issue.
And so we're hopeful that a combination of low emission vehicles and zero emission vehicles,
electric cars, can really solve that problem of reducing the emissions and keep us in compliance
with the law. That in essence is the OTC plan for reducing air pollution along the eastern
Seaboard. The plan is a good one says Mary Nichols, head of the Air and Radiation Office
at the EPA and the EPA did not mean to let the deadline pass. It's just that, well, there
was a problem. Well, we were caught up in the problem under the Administrator Procedures
Act that we were required to do a rulemaking on this petition. We couldn't just say yes
or no based on how we feel about the petition. We had to publish a notice in the Federal Register,
hold a public hearing and invite public comment. And then under the Federal Administrator Procedures
Act, we're also required to respond in writing to every comment that is sent in, not necessarily
word for word, but at least to summarize and to respond to the points that are made. We received
over seven filed boxes, filed, drawer sized boxes of comments, not only from the auto industry,
but from states and other interested parties as well. And many of those comments were filed
on the last day before the deadline for the close of the comment period. And we simply
were not able to get through all of our legal work before we could come out with a final
decision. So we did two things. First of all, we notified all the parties that we would be coming
out with our decision by mid-December. So we're talking about a delay of approximately one month
beyond the time when we should have made the decision and hope could have made the decision. And
then secondly, we also told the states that they could go ahead in doing their air quality plans,
which they're required to prepare and assume that the emissions reductions that are called for
in the petition would be available to them. In other words, we gave them the benefit of the
petition being granted even though we hadn't actually granted the petition. As you might expect,
there are objections to this whole matter coming in from all points. Some saying it does not go
far enough. Others claiming it goes far beyond anything feasible. The Natural Resources Defense
Council is joining with member states of the OTC in a plan to file suit against the EPA for passing
the deadline. NRDC Attorney David Hawkins says the EPA may meet their new deadline, then again,
they might not. If they, indeed, issue this decision by the middle of December then the lawsuit
will not be necessary. So once it's delivered, you will then withdraw your intent.
Well, there is no need for a formal withdrawal. The letter that has been sent to EPA states that
if the action isn't taken within 60 days, that the party's the signers of the letter would
intend to go to court to get the law enforced. So if EPA in fact does act within 60 days,
then there would be no need to withdraw the letter because the letter says that we'd only be going to
court if the agency hadn't acted. So in a sense, you would have accomplished your goal by one way or
the other. That's right. And that's one of the purposes of the notice is to give the agency 60 days
to bring itself into compliance. A brief analysis of the ozone transport commission's proposal for
achieving cleaner air. Is it a good plan, you think? Yes, we do think it's a good plan. It's one
component of an overall program to deliver cleaner air to the northeast, but it's a very important
component. We have been regulating motor vehicles, automobiles for more than 20 years,
and they continue to be a major source of air pollution and will continue to be a major source
of air pollution into the foreseeable future. And this program requires stricter pollution controls
on conventional types of automobiles, but importantly, in addition to that, it requires the
manufacturers to start innovating and coming up with vehicles that are more durable and have
many environmental benefits and the electric vehicles are a good example of that, so-called zero
emission vehicles. In filing the notice of intent aso, the NRDC seeks to speed up the process and
implement the OTC plan sooner. The American Automobile Manufacturers Association would rather scrap
the plan altogether. The association's Michael Stanton says the car is not the problem. The auto
manufacturers have done a tremendous amount to clean up the tailpipe. No matter the standards that
are on the books will result in a 98 percent cleanup of tailpipe emissions from the pre-controlled
levels of the 60s. So we're more at a point of getting the last drop out than being the uncontrolled
source. So we know that because of all of the use of the automobile that we're probably about
1 third of total emissions, the other 2 thirds coming from other mobile sources like heavy duty
trucks and airplanes and boats, but then also stationary sources as well. So we're about a third of
the active inventory and of course we have been moving to reduce emissions in our proposal that
we've got out there. It would even reduce emissions from the tailpipe even further. All right,
let's talk about your proposal. The proposal that is being floated right now is to adopt what's
called the California standard, which would mandate a certain percentage of zero emission vehicles.
And the only zero emission vehicle we have right now is the electric vehicle. What's your proposal
to counter this? We understand you believe that this, although technically, could be done
economically should not be done. Well, yeah, it's two things. It's first of all that you're exactly
correct. The ozone transport region in the state of New York want to import the requirements that
we've got to meet in California, which has a requirement that 2% of our vehicles beginning in 1998 be
electric or zero emission vehicles. And by the year 2003, fully 10% of our vehicles would have to
be electric. The problem with that is that the really the technology is not there. We are spending an
awful lot of money with the United States government to develop batteries that will work.
But right now we haven't had the technological breakthrough that will allow us to put out a vehicle
that will operate in the sense of range of an internal combustion engine or be competitive in
the sense with cost. And quite honestly, we just don't see how we can market something that
is going to cost a lot more and do a lot less. So what we've come up with is a proposal
that would take the sum of the lower emission standards that are in California and build a vehicle
to those standards, which is called the low emission vehicle, and then sell it in all 49 states.
And because of the geographic area of the Northeast and the tourism and travel into and out of
the states, the emissions reduction is equivalent to the states requiring the more exotic fuels and
the more exotic technology such as zero emission vehicles. So we're able to get the exact same
air quality benefit at a much lower cost using technology that we understand and not requiring
the additional costs of developing an infrastructure to support alternative fuels.
Michael Stanton of the Automobile Manufacturers Association, the industry says we can have electric
vehicles in showrooms if we really want them, but at a tremendous sticker price cost. In
fact, so Stanton, the sticker price would be so high nobody would buy. To make electric vehicles
more competitive, Stanton says the costs would have to be in line with more conventional vehicles
sticker prices. But Stanton says the industry simply cannot lower its prices on electric vehicles
and stay in business at the same time. Unless the costs are evenly spread to all other cars,
up to $4,000 more, he says. Not true, says Massachusetts's Secretary Cox.
We've heard that argument used by the auto industry in other examples. For example,
when Massachusetts is a little different than the other ozone transport commission states
as is the state of New York, because we passed our own low emission vehicle laws in 1990.
And so we've already alerted through our own state laws the Detroit manufacturing industry
that they had until 1998 to provide us with cleaner cars every year and ultimately
by 1998, 2% of the cars sold in Massachusetts will be electric vehicles. So the thought was that
it would be able to push the technology forward with a date certain and would give the industry enough
time to get ready for that. It wasn't an overnight expectation. It was eight years of leading people
forward getting closer and closer to the cleanest car that we could possibly find.
But we've heard in the past, you know, back in the 1990s when the law was written in Massachusetts,
the argument was, well, come 1995 when the transitional low emission vehicle is on the marketplace
in Massachusetts, you're going to see very high prices. Well, you know, two analyses have been done
in the last three weeks of the model year 1995 cars, which are transitional cars. They are cleaner
than the cars in Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont. And guess what? Our cars are selling for the same
prices every other car in New England. So that argument that oftentimes it's made that, oh,
it's going to up the ante of the car is simply not correct. Mary Nichols at EPA says this cost
argument may have held water once at a time when it took government intervention in the form of
legislative mandates to prod the auto industry along. And I think that frankly, in the early stages,
when there was great resistance and skepticism about whether there would ever be electric vehicles
out there at all, that the mandate was a very important tool in convincing the auto companies to
put resources and energy into developing a really attractive electric vehicle. I tend to think
that that hump has been overcome and that now it's time to look at what some of the other
obstacles to a more widespread use of electric vehicles might be. The biggest obstacle, probably,
is customer preference. But it is likely that low emission vehicles and the electric vehicles
will be a part of our lives just the way all other vehicle developments in years past have become.
It is believed that one day we will have a wide choice of vehicle and fuel types to choose from.
The problems being hashed out in the ozone transport commission region are likely to be seen
and the answers applied everywhere in the country where there is air pollution caused by mobile
sources, cars. In the meantime, one way or the other, the OTC will have an answer from EPA on whether
the plan conforms with clean air act regulations. Either the EPA will meet its own deadline or the
courts will force it to. This is Bruce Robertson.
Cossets of weekly environment shows are now available by calling 1-800-747-7444.
If you'd like yours this week, ask for the Environment Show program number 256. That's 1-800-747-7444.
The Environment Show program number 256.
Environmental history was made recently in a small corner of West Virginia.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has designated a high-moutainous region known as Canaine Valley
as the nation's 500th National Wildlife Refuge. Located in the north-central part of the state,
right now the refuge is a little more than 100 acres. Over time it is hoped thousands of acres will
be added as they are acquired from private property owners. Key in making this happen was Gail Baker
of the Wildlife Service. She works out of the field office in Elkins, West Virginia.
Why was this area thought to be a good suited, well suited to be a wildlife refuge?
Well this area is a very unique ecosystem and several years ago, about 15 years ago,
the Fish and Wildlife Service was able to purchase lands that are unique ecosystems.
Prior to that, the main money that we had came from the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and so they
had to be Migratory Bird Area, Migratory Bird Area. Anyway, Canaine Valley itself is a very unique
ecosystem. It is 3,200 feet above sea level and that's the floor of the valley and then there
are mountains around it. So it is the highest valley of its size, east of the Rockies. It is the
largest wetland in West Virginia and the largest wetland in the central and southern Alligainty
Mountains. All this kind of combines to make it have some very unique plants primarily because
it is kind of like a little bit of Canada that has been transposed to West Virginia. So you have
got things like Red Spruce that are very typically northern cotton grass, stagnam bogs, a lot of
things that are just very northern species and there they are south of the Mason Dixon line.
I mean it is pretty special. Another thing we have there are Black Duck, spend a lot of time
there in the winter and some of the springs. It is also very important woodcock migrating area.
So what happens when attractive lands such as the Canaine Valley and others around the country
get designated as a wildlife refuge? What is the significance of such a designation?
Well, mainly once the thing gets established, even with a very few acres, it basically means that we
can now sort of legally buy more lands and get the refuge bigger and the lands that we actually
own we manage. Now in this case we are only managing 141 acres but if we get let us say another
3,000 acres in the next year then we will manage 3,141 acres. So the Fish and Wildlife Service will
manage those lands for wildlife, for the unique things that are there. There won't be any development
but also people pretty much are allowed to use the area in a place like West Virginia where
in the Canaine Valley hunting and fishing have been going on for centuries. That would certainly
be a use that we would I am sure allow. Would you allow these sorts of activities and others camping
and hiking as well too? But being done under more of a closer supervision or scrutiny or just
freely without supervision? Well, obviously we would supervise and there are certain things that we
would allow and certain things that we wouldn't. But in camping is something that sometimes
refugees have camping and sometimes they don't. Camping of course really takes a lot of supervision
and people to empty the garbage cans and things like that and Fish and Wildlife is not a really
wealthy agency. So actually they use in this area would probably be more likely to be permitted
and not camping because there are some camping areas nearby that people can use. So hiking, wildlife
watching, photography, hunting, fishing, those kinds of things would be allowed for sure. Environmental
education type activities and things like that. Interpretive type things where we kind of explain
like what's so important about wetlands. This is going to be a great place. It already is because
we have a wonderful balsam for a swamp in the 141 acres we already have which is really very
special and that's the kind of thing we can kind of explain to the public what's special about it
and why wetlands are so important. What about the reaction of the West Virginians who live in
proximity to the proposed, well the refuge as it is now and the proposed expanded refuge eventually.
What's the general sort of the attitude I guess about taking land that was formerly in some other
type of holding either private property or some industrial ownership or some other
use that now will be off limits. You know in this day and age when there's a great deal of
discussion about private property ownership rights and the compensation for such. What's the
attitude in West Virginia about this? Well first of all I would definitely say that it is divided.
We have people who are staunch supporters who think we should just take the land, condemn the land.
There are other people of course who are staunch detractors who feel that they try to stop the
refuge and they may continue to try and stop it from getting any bigger. But let me make one point
and that is that the Fish and Wildlife Service only gets land from willing sellers and we pay
fair market value. We have to by law. So the fact is that if somebody decides and somebody
has decided within the boundary to put in a golf course there's no way we can stop that.
And so there probably will be golf courses and there are some homes and farms and things
within the boundary. The boundary is just something drawn for biological reasons and
we will try to acquire lands within that boundary but we will not go in and condemn the land or
take it. And in fact I don't think we would stop any. I mean it wouldn't be very likely for us to
say buy a golf course and turn it back into a you know a field for deer to graze in. We will look
at the lands that are not developed and this is the thing there are a lot of undeveloped lands there.
And if willing sellers want to sell them to us we'll take them if not we won't and it's going
to be a patchwork and it probably will stay a patchwork for many years and maybe forever. But that's
okay. Gail Baker, manager of the Canaine Valley Wildlife Refuge in West Virginia, the newest
addition to the nation's wildlife refuge system. Though the sanctuary is small now, Baker hopes
one day to secure thousands of acres for the Canaine Valley Wildlife Refuge. She says the valley
today tells very little of its past when most of the spruce forests were cut down in logging
operations. Today standing on the mountain ridge looking down Baker says the valley appears unspoiled.
With its new federal designation the valley will now remain unspoiled. This is Bruce Robertson.
And that's our report on the Environment Show for this week. We're glad you joined us today and
we hope you'll make an outtune in again next week for more news on the environment. The
Environment Show is a program about the environment, the air, water, soil, wildlife and people of our
common habitat. Thanks this week to production assistant Linda Anderson. The Environment Show is
a presentation of national production solely responsible for its content Dr. Alan Shartock,
executive producer. This is Bruce Robertson. The Environment Show is made possible by the
JM Kaplan Fund of New York and by Heming's Motor News, the monthly Bible of the Old Carhovy,
1-800-C-A-R-H-E-R-E.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0