March 3, 2005 - From the February, 05 issue

Alan Lloyd, Cal/EPA's New Director, Focuses on Air Quality, Brownfields & Governor's Agenda

Governor Schwarzenegger campaigned on a strong environmental platform that addressed air pollution, oceans, and brownfields. In December, the Governor appointed Dr. Alan Lloyd, former chair of the California Air Resources Board and chief scientist at the South Coast Air Quality Management District, as his second Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency. MIR is pleased to present this interview with Dr. Lloyd, in which he discusses strategies for achieving the state's pollution-reduction goals.


Alan Lloyd

Dr. Lloyd, you were named as Secretary of Cal/EPA in December by a governor who touts his commitment to protecting the environment. Please give MIR readers some insight into the governor's and the agency's environmental policy priorities and your role in implementing that policy.

Our clear, number one priority is to protect the environment and public health for all Californians. We also follow and implement the governor's environmental protection plan. The Secretary of Cal/EPA plays a critical role in those tasks. The agency has come together over the years as we have worked with the various boards and departments, and I think our effectiveness has increased. One of our challenges in the upcoming year will be to determine how the proposed actions under the California Performance Review would affect the agency and then implementing any changes that come out from the Legislature and the governor.

How were you enticed into this job?

Terry Tamminen, my predecessor and former boss, suggested it to me when he was asked to become Cabinet Secretary. My conclusion was that while I was extremely happy as the chair of the Air Resources Board – the best job I ever had – how could I turn down the opportunity to continue to work with Terry, to work with this governor, and to work with this staff. Becoming a member of Gov. Schwarzenegger's cabinet is a huge honor, privilege, and opportunity, especially since I had been appointed to the Air Resources Board by the previous governor. It was something that I felt at least I have to try.

You came to this position from the Air Resources Board and a background in the science and policy of air quality, but now your responsibilities cover a much wider range. What water quality issues and work have you identified as priorities for the agency?

Water is an area in which, clearly, I am just getting up to speed. One of the areas that the agency looks at is the allocation of water, such as CalFed and the Sacramento Delta. Moving to the south, we address the contamination of water with substances like perchlorate. With the cleanup of brownfields, the agency has to be concerned with the distribution of responsibilities between regional water boards and the Department of Toxic Substances Control. Those are some of the key issues, and I recognize that this is an area that I am still learning.

As you mentioned, Cal/EPA oversees brownfield cleanup programs. What plans do you have with regard to brownfields?

Brownfield cleanup is part of the governor's environmental action plan. We want to restore parks and strategic open spaces. Rehabilitating brownfields is part of infill strategies aimed at reducing commuting and making great use of some areas that are now vacant and have to be cleaned up. As I mentioned, there are shared responsibilities between the regional water boards, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, and there are air emissions at these sites as well. This issue is a priority for us and for the governor, but it is not easy because, clearly, there are tradeoffs with growth and developing brownfields, whether as industrial or residential. The issue of environmental justice also has to be taken into account. So, it is a complicated but very important issue.

A number of MIR interviews have focused on urban infill issues and brownfields, as opposed to those in less urban areas, and have talked about the need for cleanup standards to provide predictability for developers. Are you interested in working to clarify those standards? What about establishing a two-tier standard, one for urban infill and one for other brownfields?

My background is in the scientific arena, and I am a firm believer that we should set some targets with an adequate margin of safety. I am not yet convinced that we need two levels, but I am still gathering intelligence on that. I can see why one might want to establish a two-tier standard that is more restricted for infill and less so elsewhere, but that procedure would include assumptions about future usage and future surroundings. It is very important to try to get some more science into this and also to provide more certainty for people who are trying to clean up these sites.

Moving back to more familiar territory for you, please discuss the role Cal/EPA is going to play in dealing with state air regulations, particularly given the changes in attitudes at the federal level.

First, I feel that the California Air Resources Board has come a long way in helping to clean the air. The governor gave us a goal of reducing air pollution 50 percent by 2010, and I think that we are on track to accomplish that. The Air Resources Board, part of Cal/EPA, will be the primary point of contact, but they are also working with the regional air districts on some of the key issues. The last year has been one of the cleanest on record in the Los Angeles area, as measured by the number of violations. We have seen the implementation of regulations to clean up fuels, vehicles, and stationary sources all pay off.

The tough thing is that as we have made progress, there has been more growth, in some areas to an unanticipated extent. For example, as we outsource goods and take jobs out of the U.S. to cheaper manufacturing in different parts of the world, a large portion of the finished goods come back through the ports in Southern California and Oakland. This has brought an increased number of containers that have to be unloaded onto trucks or trains and then shipped inland. Roughly 40 percent of those go as far east as Chicago. Here is a case where we need help from the federal government, because they are the ones who control the new locomotive engines. Although, locomotives aren't as significant polluters as some of the ships that burn very high-sulfur fuels, or trucks. So, while we have made significant strides in some areas, we now have to address these major issues.

Advertisement

A couple of weeks ago, Sunne Wright McPeak, the Secretary of Business, Transportation, and Housing, and I held a day-and-a-half-long meeting in Los Angeles to talk to the stakeholders in this industry, because the governor wants to ensure that we have continued economic growth in the state without messing up the environment.

Moving ahead to some of the other issues, we have been encouraging automibile drivers to obey speed limits and keep their tires properly inflated. We are also recommending that people consider buying hybrid, super low emission, and alternative fuel cars. Ultimately, we want to have a menu of technologies, such as electric, fuel-cell, and hydrogen automobiles that will be cleaner and more efficient and will lead us to a "de-carbonization" of fuel. This, in turn, will address both regional and global pollution.

The governor's campaign platform on the environment, written by Terry Tamminen, had the lofty goal of a 50 percent reduction in air pollution by 2010. Is it reasonable to expect this to happen in our lifetime?

Yes. One of the things I really like about the governor's plan is that it gives us a metric against which we can measure progress. It also gives us a charge for action, and it is very exciting to be able to respond to that. I would like to augment my previous statement by adding that we cannot do this with only technology. There are about 24 million cars on the road in California today, and if 1.8 million cars are sold each year, it will take a lot of time to get new clean cars through the system.

Even if there are cars today that are extremely clean both in their evaporative emissions and their tailpipe emissions, how can we address the vehicles on the road? The governor last year added more money for the Carl Moyer Program, which has been one of the most successful and popular programs that the state has administered. It is a public-private partnership in which the state grants money to people with old trucks, agricultural equipment, and many other heavy-duty engines so that they can upgrade and replace that equipment instead of just repairing it. That program, in conjunction with bringing in new vehicles, I think puts us on a sound footing to get to the 50 percent reduction goal by 2010.

There is growing concern about the health costs related to pollution. When we look at diesel particulate concentration around roadways, there is significant cause for concern. So, the sooner we clean those up – not ban diesel, but clean the particulate – by getting some of these older vehicles off of the road and putting retrofit traps on diesel trucks, the better off we will be. The good thing is that people are recognizing this, including the private sector. It makes me feel that we have got a great shot at getting to that 50 percent goal by 2010.

What about greenhouse gases?

Well, the concerns with the buildup of greenhouse gases and its implications for global climate change center on California's environment, climate, and public health. A rise in sea level rise will certainly affect coastal cities and communities. A change in the distribution of snowfall and rainfall in the mountains will have major impacts on the agricultural industry and the ski industry. And, potential increases in temperature will bring more smog, resulting in a greater effect on public health. Now, you could say that those are longer-term issues. They are, but on the other hand, they are something the governor and Cal/EPA are addressing today.

Now that you have moved into this new Cabinet position, Dr. Lloyd, what did you leave behind for the next chair of the Air Resources Board?

The 50 percent reduction in air pollution still has to get done. I think the implementation of the greenhouse gas regulation is a very important piece of this, and I would like to see it achieved. I was delighted to be a part of the Board when that was passed by a unanimous vote. A significant amount of work needs to be done on diesel particulate, such as the Carl Moyer Program, and I mentioned looking at other sources. So, believe me, my successor will have plenty to do, but I am happy to still be here to offer advice and encouragement.

Advertisement

© 2024 The Planning Report | David Abel, Publisher, ABL, Inc.