Following on the USA Today story (see
http://www.calcars.org/calcars-news/918.html ),
the Natural Resources Defense Council responded
in the form of a blog posting by Luke Tonachel,
one of the co-authors of the EPRI-NRDC report.
We're also including one of the media reports, by
John O'Dell at Edmunds.com Green Car Advisor.

From the NRDC's Switchboard Blog
Plug In for Clean Air
February 26, 2008
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ltonachel/plug_in_for_clean_air.html
Posted by Luke Tonachel in Moving Beyond Oil , Solving Global Warming

As someone who has been enthusiastically watching
and promoting plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, I
was concerned that the headline of an article in
USA Today (“Plug-in cars could actually increase
air pollution,” Feb. 26) could lead to
misperceptions about the environmental benefits
of plug-in hybrid vehicles. The fact is that
plug-ins are an important opportunity for reducing pollution.

Plug-in hybrid vehicles, which run part time on
electricity supplied from power plants, are an
extremely promising technology for reducing
global warming pollution. Compared to
conventional vehicles and today’s non-pluggable
hybrids, they can run cleaner and use less
gasoline, which helps reduce global warming
pollution, slash oil dependence and save Americans money at the pump.

The environmental benefits of large-scale plug-in
hybrid deployment have been detailed in a
comprehensive study jointly authored by the
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and
NRDC. The EPRI-NRDC report is especially relevant
because it considers the evolution of the grid
toward cleaner generation due to carbon
constraints and existing regulations that tighten
select criteria pollutant controls in the future.
It evaluates the complex mix of generation
resources used for vehicle charging in concert
with rapid penetration of plug-ins into the
market, and the study shows that plug-in hybrids
reduce global warming pollution and provide
modest, widespread air quality benefits.

Like many technologies, you can use plug-ins in
the right way or the wrong way. Charging plug-ins
with dirty coal power is the wrong way; these
carbon-intensive sources make it harder for both
the electric sector and transportation sector to
meet our long-term global warming goals. Heavy
reliance on the dirtiest technologies can also
lead to localized increases in certain criteria
air pollutants, such as particulate matter, also
known as soot. Many of NRDC’s advocacy efforts
are focused on preventing the wrong path: we are
fighting against continued use of dirty coal
generation, and we promote policies that encourage a cleaner grid mix.

The USA Today article focuses on the worst-case
scenario where the oldest, dirty coal plants are
the sole source of electricity for vehicle
charging. Typically, this is not the case; the
electricity grid is a mix of generation
technologies that includes coal along with
cleaner energy sources. Overlaying the mix,
regulations cap the criteria pollutants that are
primary contributors to smog and acid rain
(including oxides of nitrogen and sulfur
dioxide), and therefore electricity producers
cannot increase these emissions in their efforts
to meet the increased energy demanded from
plug-in hybrids. Existing laws tighten these cap
levels over time forcing power plants to get cleaner.

We already have a road map for the right way to
deploy plug-in vehicles. As soon as the vehicles
are ready for the market, they should be
introduced in large numbers across the nation in
areas where the public is assured that plugging
in will not lead to localized air pollution
problems. We need to also keep improving the
efficiency of these and other vehicles, so we
continually reduce fuel demand by maximizing fuel
economy (both miles per gallon and miles per
kilowatt-hour). Simultaneously, we should follow
examples for controlling global warming pollution
from electric sector set by California (AB32
Global Warming Solutions Act and SB1368
Greenhouse Gas Performance Standard) and the
Northeast states (Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative).

So let’s get started. It takes nearly fifteen
years to turnover the fleet of vehicles on the
road, and power plants can live for fifty years
or more. Deploying plug-in vehicles smartly will
put us on the path of clean, electrified transportation.

Comments (Add yours)
CHarlie Garlow — Feb 27 2008 01:56 PM
Will NRDC write a letter to the editor of USA
Today clarifying/responding to the
misinformation? And how can you say that there is
a "dirty way" of charging up on dirty coal, when
you admit that current Clean Air Act rules
prevent new coal plants from increasing the NOx
and SOx in our country? Are you thinking
Particulate matter or mercury? If so, look at the
requirements to reduce PM in PM non-attainment
areas and the current [lousy] rules and the near
term future rules, we hope, that will both reduce
mercury. So, new coal plants, meeting increasing
demand will not result in national increases in
these pollutants, when the national requirements are for less.


THIS FROM JOHN O'DELL, FORMERLY OF LA TIMES, NOW THE EDMUNDS GREEN CAR ADVISOR
Newspaper Poke At Plug-Ins Draws Fierce Fire
Posted by John O'Dell, Feb 26, 2008
http://blogs.edmunds.com/.eea4063/0

A report in USA Today has kicked off a firestorm
among plug-in hybrid supporters.

The story resurrects several previously published
studies to argue that in regions where
electricity is produced mainly in coal-fired
power plants, increased use of plug-ins could
increase greenhouse gas and sulfur dioxide pollution.

The key here is that the story says that "deadly
air pollution" could increase "in some regions."

The headline, however, simply states that
plug-ins "could actually create more air
pollution." That could lead readers who skim
headlines and don't delve into the story to
believe – wrongly – that plug-in hybrids might be bad everywhere and always.

Chelsea Sexton, executive director of Plug In
America, an advocacy group for the technology,
has deeper concerns, though, maintaining that the
story "borders on the irresponsible, ignoring the
full picture and cherry-picking negative facts
from different studies in order to prove a point that doesn't exist."

The Electric Power Research Institute study cited
frequently in the article actually shows that
plug-in hybrids "remain one of the most promising
technologies to off-set petroleum use and
minimize negative environmental impact," she said.

Indeed, the EPRI study's summary clearly states
that annual and cumulative greenhouse gas
emissions in every one of the nine electricity
production and plug-in use scenarios considered
(lotsof coal to little or no coal, lots of PHEVs
to few of them) would be "reduced significantly."

Furthermore, the study found that in any
scenario, "each region of the country will yield reductions in GHG emissions."

Accurate or not, the USA Today article certainly
touched a nerve, as more than 400 comments were
appended on the paper's Web site within a day of
its publication. Many have nothing to do with the
article and are instead rants for and against
various types of alternative power; calls for
invading oil-rich nations to grab their crude;
liberal-bashing and conservative-bashing
treatises; and all the other stuff that instant comment forums generate.

But some, such as this from CalCars President
Felix Kramer, do a pretty good job of putting things into perspective:

"The groundbreaking [study] that is the basis for
much of this journalist's report really amounted
to a series of models and projections for how the
US power generation industry will evolve and how
plug-in hybrids will come into the marketplace.
Under every realistic scenario, PHEVs will bring
substantial environmental benefits."

We have one criticism of Kramer's criticism,
though. He is presuming that continued use of
coal-fired power plants as plug-in hybrids come
into the market isn't a "realistic scenario."

Kramer, an early and vociferous booster of
plug-ins, says instead that the coal-fired power
plants that are the root of the evil reported in
the USA Today piece are on the way out.

They may be, but they account for almost half the
electrical production in the country today and it
likely will be decades before they are all gone
and replaced by clean, green (or at least greener) power production facilities.

Until then, it's better to discuss, and perhaps
come up with solutions for, the problems they
present rather than to ignore their presence in
anticipation of their disappearance.

Judging from the reaction the USA Today piece has
drawn, we'd suggest it did a pretty good job of stirring up discussion.

Now let's move on to the problem solving.

[TO WHICH I RESPONDED:]

Thanks, John, for pulling this piece apart. I
actually think we agree on the coal issue. I
said, "PHEVs won't arrive in volume for some
years, and by the time they are in widespread
use, there will be fewer and fewer dirty-coal
plants providing night-time power."

Cleaning the grid must go along with greening the
fleet; if we don't continue to make headway on
that, both in the US and internationally,
starting with the oldest, dirtiest coal plants,
cars will be the least of our worries.

-- Felix Kramer, Founder, CalCars.org

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Felix Kramer fkramer@...
Founder California Cars Initiative
http://www.calcars.org
http://www.calcars.org/news-archive.html
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --