HybridBlog

Debate "Flows" on EPA Blog

Hi folks, Aaron Huertas here in the UCS media department.  I’ve been helping ScottN get out the word on this EPA blog effort.  I wanted to let everyone know your comments are being noticed by the EPA and beyond.  Take a look at this great piece by Marianne Lavelle, the Energy Editor over at US News and World Report.

While over 700 comments have “flowed” into Deputy Director Peacock’s blog, he has, to date, made only one very cursory follow-up that I could find:

Just a reminder to folks: this blog is not an EPA-wide blog (as opposed to what the Department of State does, for instance). It's a blog by the Chief Operating Officer so it tends to deal with the work I do. That work doesn't always align with the EPA business some people are most interested in.

Posted by: Marcus | February 08, 2008 at 10:12 AM

Of course, the responsibility over the EPA waiver decision rests with Administrator Johnson, but that has not stopped Peacock’s blog from commenting on this issue not once, but twice as far as I could find. 

Beyond that, the Quarterly Management Report (.pdf) from Peacock’s office documents two areas where the waiver most definitely applies. First, the report measures EPA's performance related to Congressional interaction. The report says, “Constructive interactions with Congress ensure appropriate tools and resources are available for protecting human health and the environment.”  Yet EPA staff was certainly not permitted to be constructive in meeting Senator Barbara Boxer's request for information about the waiver denial according to this op-ed the senator wrote.

Additionally, Peacock’s office measures EPA effectiveness at workforce recruitment. The report says, “Recruiting a talented staff is critical for maintaining the credibility and performance of the Agency.” But when the EPA ignores its own lawyers and scientists and suppresses their findings when it reports to Congress, some might argue that this will have a chilling impact on recruitment of talented staff who want their work to be respected and appreciated.

And this isn’t the first time EPA staff have interfered with work from their scientists. UCS’s Scientific Integrity program has documented at least 20 such cases at the agency.

I hope that Mr. Peacock does decide to make a more direct response to all of your comments on his blog.  Or, in the same way that ScottN is allowing me to “guest blog” here, perhaps Administrator Johnson will take a turn at the keyboard himself.  Either way, it’s great to see this public dialogue continue online and in the press.

Posted by: Aaron Huertas

Helping the EPA’s Blog with “Openness and Transparency”

Hey everyone, ScottN back at you with something of interest, especially to the online community, regarding EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson’s dubious decision to deny the waiver individual states need to implement the California clean car standards.

A little background: a few of us here have been following the EPA’s blog, Flow of the River, written by Deputy Administrator Marcus Peacock. Washington Post columnist Al Kamen recently took interest in it as well, and in his column, "Enough About Pollution Regulations; Here's a Riff on Amy Winehouse," Kamen takes Peacock to task for glossing over key issues, including the decision to deny the clean car waiver.

Peacock responded to the column citing the blog itself as a "risk," then added:

I'm pretty senior and will be gone in a year. A good question is how do we encourage, rather than discourage, the rank and file in government to take risks and test innovative ideas?

That seemed rather ironic to us, since the EPA has silenced and ignored so many of its "rank-and-file" scientists and legal staff in the past. UCS's Scientific Integrity program has repeatedly documented EPA suppression of staff scientists, and scientific information related to global warming, mercury pollution, and many other issues.

So we asked activists to leave comments on the EPA’s blog, explaining to Deputy Administrator Peacock that ignoring EPA scientists and analysts on an issue as central as global warming pollution from vehicles is not a way to "encourage risks and test innovative ideas."

The response, both from folks making the comments and from the EPA, has been tremendous.  I’d suggest you head over to the EPA blog and have a look at the over 500 comments for yourself, as there are a lot of heartfelt and sophisticated ways that citizens are making an open appeal to the EPA to reverse its ill-founded decision.

So hats off to Mr. Peacock for creating the blog, to the EPA moderators for allowing citizen input to be seen, to my fellow bloggers, like Kate at Out in Left Field, the folks at Warming Law, and Mike at WNY, for helping to spread the word, and most of all, to everyone who has taken advantage of the opportunity to flex their online muscles in defense of the environment, cleaner cars, and scientific integrity.

Keep those comments coming, and have a great weekend!

Posted by: ScottN

Are Plugin Hybrids the Future of Cars?

Hey everyone, Jim here again.  I thought share some info on a recent forum we were asked to participate in.  On January 31st, the Center for American Progress held a panel discussion in Washington D.C. entitled “Plug-in Hybrids: the Future of Cars?”  Four panelists, covering a range of perspectives, spoke: General Motors, Honda, an expert battery consultant, and yours truly.

On a number of topics, all the panelists agreed.  Everyone concurred that batteries continue to be a major challenge for plug-ins, especially in terms of cost.  Everyone also agreed that no silver bullet exists to get our country out of its transportation energy quandary, and that a full portfolio of technologies and policies to improve fuel economy, reduce carbon from fuels, and reduce the total amount of driving (vehicle miles traveled, a.k.a. VMT) will be required.  In other words, successful plugins could help get us there, but they’re only one piece of the puzzle.

GM had an optimistic view of plugins, as demonstrated by their commitment to the Chevy Volt and Saturn Vue Green Line plugins.  In contrast, Honda made the case that the small additional fuel savings offered by a typical plugin over a comparable non-plugin hybrid isn’t worth the high price to consumers or Uncle Sam (who, in all likelihood, would have to incentivize at least the early vehicles to make them marketable).  Moreover, Honda questioned whether the enthusiasm for plugins would last, citing the ebb and flow of interest in other advanced vehicle technologies.

Battery expert Jack Deppe, from Deppe Consulting, characterized the batteries as making progress on durability, but that challenges remain, especially in terms of cost and safety.  With respect to the cost challenges, he thought we may see short range plugins (in the neighborhood of 10 miles) sooner than longer range (i.e., 40-mile) plugins, though even low-range plugins still face battery cost-related hurdles.  That said, he commended GM on their aggressive pursuit of the 40-mile Volt.

As for me, I discussed how plugins fit into the larger transportation/environment picture, and addressed the challenges this technology faces.  For those keeping score, those challenges are battery cost, safety, and durability, as well as the unknowns about the people who drive them (where they live, if they park on the street, when they’ll recharge, etc.).  I also addressed how over-hyping plugins stand to hurt this promising, but fledgling industry.

From an environmental perspective, the all-important questions is, of course, “how many, how soon?” and, to that, I raised the question of at what point “commercialization” becomes real.  Put more plainly, at what sales volume does greenwashing end and environmental progress begin?  To this last point, as reported by the Detroit News among others, GM announced at this forum that the Volt would be sold in the “tens of thousands” within a short period of its 2010 release.

GM will have a challenge on their hands delivering that many vehicles, that soon, but if they start there and deliver millions more over the years that follow, I won’t argue.  After all, the auto industry has historically been most innovative and effective in finding solutions when challenged.  I look forward to watching GM on this front.

Posted by: Jim

Truth in Advertising for Super Bowl Sunday

Hey everyone, Jim Kliesch here. I know that ScottN is our resident pop culture nerd, but during the Super Bowl on Sunday, I caught General Motors showcasing their advanced and efficient technologies: plug-ins, fuel-cell vehicles, electric vehicles, hybrids, biofuels, and efficient conventional vehicles with ads like this one.

Very exciting, yes?!?

Yet if you watched closely, the fine print at the bottom of the screen detailed the fact that many of the vehicles being promoted had either limited or no sales volumes. When it comes to improving the environment, sales volume means an awful lot. Engineering vehicles with the environment in mind is one thing; engineering them with an ad in mind is quite another.

Now let's compare that to the host of recent announcements from Ford. First, they are planning to put approximately 500,000 of their "EcoBoost" engines, which can increase fuel economy to around 20 percent, on the road by 2013. They have also been talking about cutting weight out of their vehicles to save fuel and are going to spread electric power steering throughout their fleet in the next few years to boost fuel economy and even save money on warranty costs. And, yes, it is just a concept and it does not go all the way, but I can't help but see some hope and a little UCS influence on Ford's Explorer America "Greener SUV" concept.

I'm by no means saying Ford has completely changed their stripes (note what Scott said about the '09 Escape Hybrid in the last HybridCenter.org Driving Change Network newsletter), but their emphasis seems to be more on products than PR--and that's a real step toward the end zone, rather than just an engineering lateral.

Posted by: Jim