Dr. Kenneth Green
Director of Environmental Program
Reason Public Policy Institute
Executive Summary
On the brink of a new century, Georgia carries with it a 20-year-old problem: ozone levels that exceed federal air quality standards. Ground-level ozone is an air pollutant implicated in causing sickness and premature death via aggravation of a variety of lung disorders such as asthma and emphysema. As a result, innovative and cost-effective solutions to high ozone levels are in demand throughout the country, and Georgia is no exception.
Metro Atlanta currently faces the greatest ozone-reduction challenge. Moreover, this pollutant respects no boundaries — 13 of Metro Atlanta’s 21 counties are “serious” nonattainment areas as classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The current ozone nonattainment status affects a large percentage of Georgians. Forty-four percent of Georgia’s population lives within the 13-county nonattainment area, while an additional 15 percent live in counties within 25 miles of the nonattainment area.
Unfortunately, the percentage of Georgians affected will only increase over the next few years. Cities throughout the state are aware of the ozone challenge: Macon, Columbus, Augusta, and perhaps Albany are likely to fall out of compliance with new pollution standards in 2000. In fact, if Bibb, Muscogee, Richmond, and Dougherty counties are included as ozone nonattainment areas in the near future, the percentage of Georgians living in such an area will increase to 67 percent.
Under the federal 1990 Clean Air Act, states with ozone nonattainment areas must implement measures that will bring their nonattainment areas into compliance with the ground-level ozone standard established by the EPA. At present, Metro Atlanta is the only area in Georgia in nonattainment. Moreover, if the area remains out of compliance by January 2000, the EPA may reclassify Metro Atlanta as a severe nonattainment area. This current serious (and pending “severe”) nonattainment classification is problematic, since under federal law, serious and severe nonattainment areas face a host of restrictions on development and on use of federal funds — both of which can significantly impact the economic prospects of the region.
As a result, state agencies and others have focused on traditional stationary- and mobile-source control approaches to meet the EPA ozone regulations. However, the estimated costs of such programs are terribly expensive. For the estimated 2000 population of 4.4 million people, implementation of both traditional stationary- and mobile-source control measures translates into $207 per person per year ($828 per family of four) in the 44-county region, or $122 per person annually ($488 per family of four) if borne by everyone in the state of Georgia. Moreover, a recent study completed for Georgia’s Environmental Protection Division (EPD) estimates the cost of a traditional mobile-source control program at $771 million in annual control costs; $1.4 billion in output losses from business, translating to 18,543 less jobs; and decreases in regional household income of approximately $914 million per year.
Furthermore, the traditional approaches to solving the Atlanta area’s ozone problem are not only horribly expensive, they are less effective and less respectful of people’s economic choices than alternative approaches. Indeed, problems with such traditional mobile-source control measures go beyond cost to include problems of expected performance, impacts on personal choice, mobility, resilience, and flexibility. For example,
- California reformulated gasoline is expensive, it contains a chemical that has caused the pollution of drinking water in California, and its effect on emissions has not been found to be statistically significant.
- Rideshare programs are largely ineffective, poorly targeted, very costly and very unpopular.
- Traditional mass transit ridership has declined steadily since its war-induced peak in 1945 despite massive public subsidies. In addition, transit buses and rail use more energy to transport a person than an automobile.
One purpose of this study is to explore some of the non-traditional approaches that could help Metro Atlanta attack its ozone problem, without attacking its engine of economic progress. With respect to stationary-source controls, many states have typically followed the traditional command-and-control, technology-mandating, and permit-oriented approach. However, this study considers more innovative approaches for Georgia, such as:
- Industry-wide performance standards;
- Facility-wide permitting;
- One-stop permitting; and,
- Emission trading.
Several states, including Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oklahoma, and others, have had considerable success in implementing such innovative stationary-source controls. Pilot programs in these states have demonstrated that the above approaches produce greater environmental benefits with less negative impacts to industry, business, and associated impacts on employment, household income, and quality of life.
With respect to mobile-source controls, more options are available due to the broader language of the Clean Air Act requirements involving mobile-source controls. The traditional methods such as the use of California reformulated gasoline, enhanced inspection and maintenance, expanded HOV lanes, alternative fuel promotion, employer-based rideshare programs, and mass transit expansion efforts have a history of poor performance, high cost, unpopularity, and invite negative unintended consequences. For these reasons, the following non-traditional measures for Georgia are considered:
- Market incentives to foster vehicle fleet turnover;
- Remote-sensing to identify high polluting vehicles;
- Deregulation of Atlanta’s taxi and shuttle industry to eliminate price controls and heavy restrictions;
- An extensive network of private shuttle-van services (both gasoline and natural gas) flowing over a system of HOV/HOT (high-occupancy toll) lanes;
- Allowing employees to “cash-out” their employer’s parking subsidies; and,
- Market incentives to promote use of the new transit options as they appear, such as parking cash-out and emission-based vehicle registration fees.
The scale and nature of Metro Atlanta’s problems combined with its unique transportation characteristics call for solutions that go beyond the limited capability of traditional command-and-control measures in terms of either effectiveness or cost-efficiency. Indeed, Metro Atlanta must look beyond such approaches, which provide only marginal success at huge costs in terms of economic health and personal autonomy. If it chooses more innovative methods to solve its air pollution problems, Metro Atlanta stands a chance of cleaning up its polluted airshed while retaining its quality of life. Finally, Metro Atlanta’s goal must be to find that elusive middle ground: the point at which emission reductions satisfy EPA requirements (leading to the removal of federal sanctions) and improve the lives of Atlanta-area residents.
By Dr. Kenneth Green
Executive Summary
On the brink of a new century, Georgia carries with it a 20-year-old problem: ozone levels that exceed federal air quality standards. Ground-level ozone is an air pollutant implicated in causing sickness and premature death via aggravation of a variety of lung disorders such as asthma and emphysema. As a result, innovative and cost-effective solutions to high ozone levels are in demand throughout the country, and Georgia is no exception.
Metro Atlanta currently faces the greatest ozone-reduction challenge. Moreover, this pollutant respects no boundaries — 13 of Metro Atlanta’s 21 counties are “serious” nonattainment areas as classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The current ozone nonattainment status affects a large percentage of Georgians. Forty-four percent of Georgia’s population lives within the 13-county nonattainment area, while an additional 15 percent live in counties within 25 miles of the nonattainment area.
Unfortunately, the percentage of Georgians affected will only increase over the next few years. Cities throughout the state are aware of the ozone challenge: Macon, Columbus, Augusta, and perhaps Albany are likely to fall out of compliance with new pollution standards in 2000. In fact, if Bibb, Muscogee, Richmond, and Dougherty counties are included as ozone nonattainment areas in the near future, the percentage of Georgians living in such an area will increase to 67 percent.
Under the federal 1990 Clean Air Act, states with ozone nonattainment areas must implement measures that will bring their nonattainment areas into compliance with the ground-level ozone standard established by the EPA. At present, Metro Atlanta is the only area in Georgia in nonattainment. Moreover, if the area remains out of compliance by January 2000, the EPA may reclassify Metro Atlanta as a severe nonattainment area. This current serious (and pending “severe”) nonattainment classification is problematic, since under federal law, serious and severe nonattainment areas face a host of restrictions on development and on use of federal funds — both of which can significantly impact the economic prospects of the region.
As a result, state agencies and others have focused on traditional stationary- and mobile-source control approaches to meet the EPA ozone regulations. However, the estimated costs of such programs are terribly expensive. For the estimated 2000 population of 4.4 million people, implementation of both traditional stationary- and mobile-source control measures translates into $207 per person per year ($828 per family of four) in the 44-county region, or $122 per person annually ($488 per family of four) if borne by everyone in the state of Georgia. Moreover, a recent study completed for Georgia’s Environmental Protection Division (EPD) estimates the cost of a traditional mobile-source control program at $771 million in annual control costs; $1.4 billion in output losses from business, translating to 18,543 less jobs; and decreases in regional household income of approximately $914 million per year.
Furthermore, the traditional approaches to solving the Atlanta area’s ozone problem are not only horribly expensive, they are less effective and less respectful of people’s economic choices than alternative approaches. Indeed, problems with such traditional mobile-source control measures go beyond cost to include problems of expected performance, impacts on personal choice, mobility, resilience, and flexibility. For example,
- California reformulated gasoline is expensive, it contains a chemical that has caused the pollution of drinking water in California, and its effect on emissions has not been found to be statistically significant.
- Rideshare programs are largely ineffective, poorly targeted, very costly and very unpopular.
- Traditional mass transit ridership has declined steadily since its war-induced peak in 1945 despite massive public subsidies. In addition, transit buses and rail use more energy to transport a person than an automobile.
One purpose of this study is to explore some of the non-traditional approaches that could help Metro Atlanta attack its ozone problem, without attacking its engine of economic progress. With respect to stationary-source controls, many states have typically followed the traditional command-and-control, technology-mandating, and permit-oriented approach. However, this study considers more innovative approaches for Georgia, such as:
- Industry-wide performance standards;
- Facility-wide permitting;
- One-stop permitting; and,
- Emission trading.
Several states, including Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oklahoma, and others, have had considerable success in implementing such innovative stationary-source controls. Pilot programs in these states have demonstrated that the above approaches produce greater environmental benefits with less negative impacts to industry, business, and associated impacts on employment, household income, and quality of life.
With respect to mobile-source controls, more options are available due to the broader language of the Clean Air Act requirements involving mobile-source controls. The traditional methods such as the use of California reformulated gasoline, enhanced inspection and maintenance, expanded HOV lanes, alternative fuel promotion, employer-based rideshare programs, and mass transit expansion efforts have a history of poor performance, high cost, unpopularity, and invite negative unintended consequences. For these reasons, the following non-traditional measures for Georgia are considered:
- Market incentives to foster vehicle fleet turnover;
- Remote-sensing to identify high polluting vehicles;
- Deregulation of Atlanta’s taxi and shuttle industry to eliminate price controls and heavy restrictions;
- An extensive network of private shuttle-van services (both gasoline and natural gas) flowing over a system of HOV/HOT (high-occupancy toll) lanes;
- Allowing employees to “cash-out” their employer’s parking subsidies; and,
- Market incentives to promote use of the new transit options as they appear, such as parking cash-out and emission-based vehicle registration fees.
The scale and nature of Metro Atlanta’s problems combined with its unique transportation characteristics call for solutions that go beyond the limited capability of traditional command-and-control measures in terms of either effectiveness or cost-efficiency. Indeed, Metro Atlanta must look beyond such approaches, which provide only marginal success at huge costs in terms of economic health and personal autonomy. If it chooses more innovative methods to solve its air pollution problems, Metro Atlanta stands a chance of cleaning up its polluted airshed while retaining its quality of life. Finally, Metro Atlanta’s goal must be to find that elusive middle ground: the point at which emission reductions satisfy EPA requirements (leading to the removal of federal sanctions) and improve the lives of Atlanta-area residents.
Dr. Kenneth Green is the Director of Environmental Program for Reason Public Policy Institute.
