REGULATORY ISSUES


Regulators Move the Goal Posts – Past the Edge of Technology


By Michael W. Lewis, Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition


Just when you thought that Tier 4 final,


particulate filters and repowering old en- gines were costly enough and were sup- posed to solve the problem, the regulators have decided that it’s not the equipment that’s creating the emissions problems – it’s the way you are using it! Air Districts across the country are now


preparing their new air quality plans that are due to the U.S. Environmental Protec- tion Agency (USEPA) next year. The goal of the plans is to achieve new standards that, in many cases, go beyond all known technologies. But, many of these could be facing limits on their hours of operations as the next step in emissions reductions. The California Air Resources Board,


of course, is leading the charge in finding new, creative, and costly ways to reduce air pollution. Its latest invention: the Indirect Source Rule. This follows a line of think- ing that says “you can buy the newest and best machine available, but now you can only use it three days a week!” The focus is now to reduce total production, through- put or hours of operation. That will reduce air pollution.


Federal Sources Some of Biggest Polluters It’s nonsensical of course, but for states


and local regulators, there is very little left to control to reduce emissions. Sta- tionary sources have reduced emissions nearly 90 percent in the last few years, and California’s unique auto emissions stan- dards have reduced mobile emissions by half. Ironically, it’s the federal sources, the ones controlled solely by USEPA – planes, trains, ships, and locomotives – that are some of the largest polluters with the least regulations. In fact, in Southern California, the lack


of controls on federal sources will keep us from being able to meet the standards set by the USEPA, even if everybody else reduced to zero! Not only is USEPA dis- inclined to regulate those sources, they


16 July/August 2015


won’t allow those emissions to be taken out of the calculation, and they expect all the other sources to “do more” to achieve the standards. Unfortunately, when everyone else has


pushed the technology envelope to near zero, “doing more” means “working less” to achieve the goal. If this huge bubble of federal sources remains unregulated, the only option is to begin limiting the time that the equipment is allowed to operate.


The Indirect Source Rule – a Slippery Slope Yes, the USEPA are hypocrites. They


expect the local agencies to do everything while they do little to control sources they have kept exclusively within their prevue. Thus, the locally invented Indirect Source Rule. In Southern California, Indirect Sourc-


es are considered to be large employers, shopping centers, sports and amusement facilities, housing developments, schools and colleges, and industrial sites — any- thing with a large parking lot. If it attracts cars, it is “indirectly” creating emissions. The riddle is how do you build something that doesn’t attract cars, and if you do, how do you eliminate the emissions from those cars and the emissions from the construc- tion process? There are lots of ideas flying around. You could permit only the newest con-


struction equipment on a job site and you could limit the operations to only a few hours a day. You could create a “mitigation fee” and use the money to reduce emis- sions from some other source – like planes, trains, and locomotives. You could give every new home purchaser a zero emission vehicle. Or, you could just reduce the size of the project to stay below some arbitrary emission limit. None of these are very practical op-


tions. The indirect source approach is a slip-


pery slope and one without any provable emissions justification. If buying a new home means you have a shorter com- mute, then you’ve reduced emissions, not


increased them.


It really means su rr ende ring to the idea that those who have achieved


the


greatest emission reductions must now curtail their operations for those who have done very little to contribute to cleaner air. California has never let practicality


Michael Lewis


stand in the way of a crazy idea. If the in- fection starts here, you can bet there isn’t an antibiotic to keep in from eventually infecting your state.


Limiting Damage to the Industry The air quality planning effort in


Southern California will run its course over the next year. Local construction leaders will be doing their best to limit its damage to the industry in the best interests of construction firms across the country. In California, we already have


the


toughest air quality regulations on the planet. We have driven nearly all manu- facturing out of


Southern California.


There are no more auto assembly plants, and aerospace, furniture manufacturing, and metal plating operations are almost extinct. We have rules to force the early turnover of construction machines, por- table equipment and road trucks before their useful life has been realized, and we have more hybrid, electric, and alternative fuel vehicles than the rest of the country combined. Now it’s time for the federal bureaucrats


to do their part. If they won’t, it’s time to seriously look at amending the Clean Air Act to provide a better option than pun- ishing Californians for the inaction of the national administration. 


Michael W. Lewis is Senior Vice-


President of the Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition.


California Constructor


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24