Finding A Better Way to Cleaner Air in Texas Departing from the SIP Process

State Implementation Plan Process State must develop plan demonstrating attainment State must develop plan demonstrating attainment Based on science and best guesses about the future Based on science and best guesses about the future Includes federal controls and additional state/local controls necessary to make up any shortfall Includes federal controls and additional state/local controls necessary to make up any shortfall Huge, complex document that requires constant review and revision Huge, complex document that requires constant review and revision

Reasons to Depart from the SIP Process 1. SIP-related emissions now dominated by Federal sources 2. Increased role of interstate/international pollution 3. Federal controls reducing SIP effectiveness 4. State/local controls more costly, less effective 5. SIP process emphasizes procedure over results 6. SIP process focuses state myopically on short-term 7. SIP process encourages delay tactics

SIP Related Emissions Now Dominated by Federal Sources that the State Cannot as Efficiently and Effectively Control Houston 2007Dallas 2007

Interstate/International Transport More of an Issue and Outside of State’s Control EPA found in CAIR that Arkansas significantly contributes to Houston ozone TX in CAIR because impacts 2 counties in Illinois Over ½ of ozone in DFW is background Cannot tell another state what to do →

Federal Controls Making SIP Process Less Effective at Reducing Emissions  290 Counties in 2002  27 Counties in 2020

Federal SIP Controls Are Less Expensive than State/Local Controls

Federal SIP Controls Generally More Effective and Enforceable than State/Local Controls No-drive days 55 mph limit Idling restriction Delay commercial hours Reduced power take-offs Barbecue ban

SIP Process Places Emphasis on Process over Results Huge, complex documents requiring constant review and revision Huge, complex documents requiring constant review and revision More important to have EPA approved SIP than to achieve attainment (sanctions vs. bump-up) More important to have EPA approved SIP than to achieve attainment (sanctions vs. bump-up) Little incentive to evaluate real-world control effectiveness Little incentive to evaluate real-world control effectiveness Focus should be public health—not paperwork Focus should be public health—not paperwork

SIP Process Focuses State and Local Government Myopically on Finding Short-Term Solutions Houston Control Development Deadline Mar Houston Control Development Deadline Mar Rule Development Deadline Sept Rule Development Deadline Sept All Controls Implemented Dec All Controls Implemented Dec. 2008

SIP Process Encourages Resources to be Spent on Delay Tactics Ex./ Houston 8-hour SIP 2010 deadline, 2007 submittal 65% NOx reduction needed Cannot timely attain—but compelled to spend tens of millions: (1) developing unviable control strategies (that will eventually be thrown out) and (2) justifying a bump-up money would be better spent reducing pollution

A Better Path

Goals of Replacement Strategy More real-world emission reductions at less cost More real-world emission reductions at less cost Address community multi-pollutant concerns historically overshadowed by demands to focus on ozone Address community multi-pollutant concerns historically overshadowed by demands to focus on ozone Find it and fix it (increased compliance assistance and enforcement) Find it and fix it (increased compliance assistance and enforcement) Increased monitoring and measurements Increased monitoring and measurements Improve emission reduction technologies Improve emission reduction technologies

Proposed Solution  Transform SIP Process into National Multi-Pollutant Planning Process and Give EPA Primary Responsibility Give EPA primary responsibility to achieve NAAQS Give EPA primary responsibility to achieve NAAQS EPA can regulate all sources and do so more efficiently and effectively EPA can regulate all sources and do so more efficiently and effectively EPA can address interstate and international transport which states cannot EPA can address interstate and international transport which states cannot States can assist EPA in achieving NAAQS States can assist EPA in achieving NAAQS Allows states to focus more on local pollution concerns and reducing emissions Allows states to focus more on local pollution concerns and reducing emissions Develop National Multi-pollutant Planning Process Develop National Multi-pollutant Planning Process

Initial Reaction to Our SIP Reform Effort This is too big and difficult This is too big and difficult Politically this is not the right time Politically this is not the right time This is an idealistic endeavor that is bound to fail This is an idealistic endeavor that is bound to fail I benefit from the status quo I benefit from the status quo This is better handled by others” This is better handled by others” “This is the right thing to do for the environment and business, but: Thankfully the people in these pictures did the right thing for our nation despite being told it could not be done