Sierra Club FL Chapter Comments to FLDEP on its draft plan for how best to spend FL's $166M from the VW Diesel Scandal. FL is the last state to issue its plan, lagging behind all the other states now using their funds to help school boards and transit agencies buy zero emission electric buses. VW, now transitioning to manufacturing only EVs by 2026 in Chattanooga, is making amends for falsifying emissions testing by spending up to $14.7 billion to remediate its excess NOx emissions, buying back vehicles ($10.03 billion), installing EV charging stations, and awarding states $2.7 billion towards NOx reduction programs via the Environmental Mitigation Trust.
August 16,
2019
John Dawson,
Deputy Director
Division of
Air Resource Management
Florida
Department of Environmental Protection
3800
Commonwealth Blvd, MS93
Carr
Building, Room 215
Tallahassee
FL, 32399–3000
Delivered
via Email: VWMitigation@FloridaDEP.gov
Dear Deputy Director Dawson,
On behalf of Sierra Club Florida and our 40,000 members and
supporters, let us express our appreciation for the work performed by the staff
of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) on the State ofFlorida Beneficiary Mitigation Plan. We have been engaged with FDEP staff from
the beginning, participating in all public input sessions as well as the public
survey conducted last year. We look forward to seeing the plan’s funds used
towards relieving our residents from the harm of smog generated by NOx
spewing-vehicles.
We are glad to see school, transit and shuttle buses receive
70% of the VW settlement money and that the maximum 15% was allocated for electric
vehicle supply equipment.
We appreciate the Governor’s recently announced commitment
to installing charging stations along the Florida Turnpike. However, the plan
must provide additional details on how funds will be spent on this initiative,
such as information on cost shares, segments served, and type of charging
supported.
We found that the "Public Input" and "Areas
with a Disproportional Share of the Air Pollution Burden" sections to be
informative. However, the "Overall Goal of Florida's Mitigation
Plan", "Eligible Mitigation
Actions", and "Emissions Benefits" sections lack clarity and
require additional review to clearly outline FDEP's intent to the public.
The major points that Sierra Club Florida would like to see
addressed in the plan are the following:
● Clarification
on whether eligible units will be replaced with electric powered units and a
commitment to funding only electric powered units for transit and school buses.
We request that FDEP clarify its definition of alternative and legacy fuels by
defining diesel and diesel-hybrid fuels as legacy fuels, rendering them
ineligible for funding under the settlement
 |
| Asthma is the #1 reason any kid misses a day of school. They need zero emission electric buses, not more dirty diesel. |
■ In "Emissions Benefits Estimate Based on Selected Eligible Mitigation Actions", diesel buses are included an example. There are two major problems concerning the inclusion of diesel buses in this analysis Several relevant cost factors are missing from the analysis, leading one to erroneously conclude that diesel buses would achieve the lowest cost per ton of pollutants removed. However, consideration of the full range of relevant cost factors indicates that electric buses provide the lowest cost per ton of pollutants removed.
● Figure 13
analyzes expenses for diesel and electric buses. However, it includes only
information on capital expenses and not operating expenses. This ignores the
primary financial difference between the two modalities and can lead the reader
to mistakenly conclude that diesel buses eliminate more NOx per ton than
electric buses. Total Cost of Ownership analyses of electric, diesel and electric
transit buses show that an electric transit bus is more economical than diesel
or diesel-hybrid buses, due to substantially lower lifetime fuel and
maintenance expenses. Because of these factors, zero-emission electric buses
are the most cost-effective means of reducing NOx emissions. Proterra, an
electric bus manufacturer that boasts the highest number of transit service
miles in the United States, now estimates electric bus fuel costs to be less
than one-third of that of a diesel bus ($9,680 electric vs. $30,000 diesel).
Proterra also cites a maintenance expense rate of $.55/mile for electric vs.
$1.00/mile for diesel, which would amount to $22,000 for electric vs. $40,000
for diesel for after 40,000 miles. Such
factors, completely omitted in the draft plan, change the conclusion of how to
remove the greatest Tons Per Year for the dollar. We recommend that FDEP either
add another chart which adds such comparative operating expenses in a more
comprehensive manner, or delete any reference to diesel as anything other than
as a legacy fuel.
 |
| PSTA now runs 2 electric buses in downtown St. Pete, with 4 more on the way to Pinellas County. |
● Electric
bus manufacturers have faced objections concerning the comparatively high
up-front cost of electric buses. To assuage these concerns, the industry has
devised strategies to reduce capital expenses of electric buses to a level
comparable with new diesel buses. Chief of these initiatives is offering to lease
the electric bus batteries. In doing so, the expense of the battery is converted
from a large capital expense into an operating expense that is paid for in
affordable regular payments. . Through
this initiative, the operating costs and Total Cost of Ownership of electric
buses remain lower than diesel and diesel-hybrid buses (see attached powerpoint
slides provided by Proterra). BYD, a supplier for other Florida transit
agencies, also offers similar battery lease options, as do other manufacturers.
Like Proterra’s initiative, these programs curb capital expenses while keeping
operational expenses and the Total Cost of Ownership of electric buses lower
than diesel and diesel-hybrid alternatives.
● While the
electric school bus industry does not yet operate in Florida, we reasonably
expect them to produce electric school
buses with similarly affordable Total Costs of Ownership. Expense factors that
describe the low operating cost of electric buses should be included in any
determination of how FDEP might best meet its criteria of identifying
mitigation projects that achieve the lowest cost per ton of pollutants removed.
■ For the State to obtain the
greatest benefit from the plan’s funds,
the Emission Benefit section should recognize that the greatest reduction of
NOx emissions, and the greatest benefit to the public, are received when local
governments and other applicants provide a cost share partnership with the
State on these projects.
 |
| Florida's smoggiest county, Hillsborough, on one of its all-too-frequent smoggy days. |
■ It is not clear whether replacing
school, transit and shuttle buses outside the five Air Quality Priority Areas
in Florida would be eligible for consideration. Would transit agencies and
school boards be able to respond to RFIs if they are located outside of the
five designated Air Quality Priority Areas in Florida?
■ As with Figure 13., Appendix E on
page 60 should be replaced with a graph that more accurately compares the
replacement of existing diesel buses with electric buses. It appears that the
current exhibit is discussing replacement of diesel engines with newer diesel
engines. It also repeats the same table to document both school and transit
buses. Operating expenses should be provided for any and all comparative information,
here and elsewhere.
 |
| Our abundant FL sunshine converts tailpipe emissions into O2 - ground level ozone, a.k.a. smog. |
■ We recommend modifying the protocol
for acquiring eligible replacement units for school, transit and shuttle buses
to include only electrical vehicles. A number of states have developed plans
that specifically direct these funds to replace diesel school, transit and
shuttle buses with electric school, transit and shuttle buses. Other
alternative fuels, such as i.e. propane and Compressed Natural Gas, do not
deliver either the operating cost savings or the reduction in NOx emissions
that zero emission electric buses provide. Electric vehicles are the vehicles
of the future, and the Sunshine State should be a leader in electric vehicles.
 |
| Tallahassee's Star Metro transit agency was the 1st in FL to use electric buses. Star Metro will go 100% electric by 2035, part of the City's Ready for 100% Clean Energy for All commitment. |
■ Include a general or aspirational timeline for the encumbrance of the funds.
● While
reduction of pollutants other than NOx from diesel engines is not explicitly
one of the criteria chosen by FLDEP, it is worth noting that several other
states have considered non-NOx pollution co-benefits in their VW investment
decisions. For example:
● Colorado’s
mitigation plan establishes a goal to “[m]aximize the trust’s air quality
benefits in Colorado, including reductions of NOx, greenhouse gases, and other
pollutants.” (Colorado Proposed Beneficiary Mitigation Plan: Volkswagen, Audi,
and Porsche Clean Air Act Settlements (Aug. 28, 2017), at 8, available at https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/AP_VW_Beneficiary_Mitigation_Plan.pdf
.)
● The
District of Columbia notes that “[t]he principal air pollutants of concern in
the District are NOx, fine particles (PM2.5), ozone, greenhouse gases (GHG),
and air toxics” and that, “[a]lthough the VW Settlement is primarily focused on
reducing NOx emissions, the District has also decided to consider reduction of
PM2.5, GHGs, and air toxics in developing this spending plan.” (DC Department
of Energy and Environment (2017) The District’s Draft Spending Plan For
Volkswagen Settlement Funds, at 2, available at https://doee.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddoe/page_content/attachments/The%20District%27s%20Draft%20Spending%20Plan%20for%20Volkswagen%20Settlement%20Funds%20%28Draft%20Beneficiary%20Mitigation%20Plan%29.pdf
.)
● Minnesota
expressly targets emission reductions in three categories: NOx, PM2.5 and GHGs.
(Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota’s Volkswagen Settlement
Beneficiary Mitigation Plan – DRAFT (Feb. 2018), at 13, available at https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/aq-mvp2-32a.pdf
.)
● The
public health benefits of reducing NOx and other pollutants, along with the
economic benefits of lower Total Cost of Ownership creates a compelling case
for allocating 70% of these funds solely for electric school, transit and
shuttle buses as the most cost-effective means of achieving the goals of the
settlement.
Thank you for your consideration of these points. If you
have any questions or we can be of any further assistance, please do not
hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Phil
Compton, Senior Organizing Representative
Deborah
Foote, Government Affairs & Political Director
Grant
Gelhardt, State Chapter Executive Committee Member
Sierra Club
Florida
 |
| 1400 FL Sierra Club members added their names to our request that FLDEP use these one-time-only funds to help our schools and transit agencies do their part to clean up our air with clean, quiet zero emission electric buses. If you were one of them, thanks! |
