New Jersey Releases Draft Plan for Reducing GHG Emissions; Low Emission Vehicle Standards a Key Element
16 December 2008
![]() |
Projected GHG reduction by 2020 from three main programs, including Low Emission Vehicle standards. Click to enlarge. |
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) released the state’s proposed plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (approximately a 25% reduction below estimated 2020 business-as-usual emissions), followed by a further reduction of emissions to 80% below 2006 levels by 2050. DEP invited the public to comment on the recommendations outlined in a draft report published on the state’s Global Warming website.
The draft report is a key requirement of the Global Warming Response Act (GWRA), signed by Governor Corzine on 6 July 2007. The plan reinforces three of the state’s core environmental programs that are aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions from New Jersey’s largest and second-largest contributing sectors: transportation and energy.
Estimated emissions from on-road gasoline vehicles, on-road diesel vehicles, aviation, marine vessels, and railroad and other transportation sources totaled approximately 49 MMT of CO2e in 2004, according to the report—about 36% of the New Jersey GHG emissions that year. On-road gasoline consumption represents the vast majority of those emissions.
The total contribution of the transportation sector to GHG emissions is a product of several factors, including the vehicles themselves, the overall level of travel activity, the technologies used to power that activity and the infrastructure used to support that activity. As such, recommendations to address transportation-related emissions must focus on each of these factors by ensure [sic] the proliferation of increasingly cleaner vehicles and fuels; encouraging eco-friendly driving and vehicle maintenance habits; and providing for clean, safe and reliable alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles. In addition, addressing VMT requires a two-pronged approach: 1) encouraging individuals to reduce their reliance on motor vehicles by ensuring viable alternatives to motor vehicle transport are readily available and convenient to use, and 2) simultaneously improving the State’s overall land use planning and design in order to reduce sprawl and encourage compact living that is conducive to non-motor vehicle commuting.
—Draft Global Warming Response Act Recommendation Report
2020. Achieving the 2020 reductions is built around three primary programs:
- Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) program, modeled after California’s LEV program;
- Energy Master Plan (EMP); and
- Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) program.
In November 2005, New Jersey adopted a Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) program modeled after California’s LEV Program. The New Jersey program contains three components: vehicle emission standards, fleet-wide emission requirements, and a Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) sales requirement:
All new vehicles offered for sale in New Jersey must be California certified for emissions beginning 1 January 2009.
A non-methane organic gas (NMOG) fleet average requirement requires that each auto manufacturer’s sales fleet in New Jersey meet a declining fleet average non-methane organic gas emission standard.
Automakers must reduce fleet-wide GHG emissions from the vehicles they sell in New Jersey by 30% by 2016. For New Jersey to implement this part of the program, California would first need to receive a waiver from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), thereby allowing all other states to follow California with this part of their vehicle implementation strategy.
Implementation of the GHG component of the New Jersey LEV program roughly doubles the GHG reductions by 2020 relative to the GHG reductions from the recent tightening of the federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, and is critical to the State’s efforts to meet its GWRA limits.
NJ DEP will work with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in developing the CARB’s proposed regulatory changes to the ZEV requirements of the LEV program to refocus the ZEV program on GHG reductions from advanced ZEV technologies.
Assuming the CA LEV GHG rules are in place, New Jersey anticipates reducing greenhouse gas emissions from on-road gasoline to 34.6 MMTCO2e in 2020, compared to 44.3 MMTCO2e under the business-as-usual scenario for 2020—a 22% decrease. On-road diesel emissions are projected to drop 2% to 10.8 MMTCO2e from 11.0 under a BAU scenario.
Supporting recommendations for reducing emissions from the transportation sector for 2020 include:
- State fleet purchasing policies emphasizing fuel efficiency, alternative fuels, and efficient operation;
- A Low Carbon Fuel Standard;
- Developing policies to promote ZEV use;
- Maintaining existing mass transit infrastructure and expand system capacity;
- Developing methods to analyze carbon footprint impacts of transportation capital programs;
- Encouraging Eco-Driving;
- Providing planning assistance to local governments to review new corridors for integrating transportation and land use planning, as well as continuing in transit-oriented development;
- Expanding signal synchronization;
- Assessing the feasibility of HOT (High Occupancy Toll) Lanes;
- Exploring fuel efficient vehicle incentive programs (e.g., feebate);
- Exploring the use of Pay-As-You-Drive (PAYD) Insurance;
- Analyzing the feasibility of implementing pricing mechanisms and their effectiveness at reducing GHG emissions;
- Expanding Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) routes;
- Enhancing commuting programs;
- Promoting transit-oriented development and promoting smart growth;
- Implementing truck anti-idling policies;
- Investigating the possibility of increased waterborne commerce; and
- Investigating rail shuttle projects.
2050. To attain the 2050 goals, New Jersey plans more aggressive action in the key sectors where the greatest GHG emissions reductions can be gained over the long term including: Land Use Planning and Transportation; Terrestrial Carbon Sequestration; Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; and New Technologies and Markets.
For Land Use Planning and Transportation, the state sees:
Limiting VMT growth, between now and 2020, to a rate of growth of no more than 1% per year.
Ensuring that all VMT in New Jersey is “green” VMT within the next 15 years. The NJ DEP defines a “green” vehicle as one with a California 2009 GHG score of 9 or greater (equivalent to 33 miles per gallon or greater).
Holding GHG emissions from on-road transportation to a total of no more than 40 MMT by 2020.
90% of development in New Jersey will occur in areas already served by public infrastructure and 99% of that development will be in the form of redevelopment.
At least 90% of all buildings in New Jersey will be fully occupied.
All new land use and transportation investments will consider the need to adapt to the impacts of climate change.
All New Jerseyans will have alternative transportation options to get to work beyond single occupancy vehicles (SOVs).
The state will host six meetings in January to solicit input on the plan. The Land Use/Transportation Planning meeting will be held 14 January 2009.
Resources
I am certain all those oil refineries in NJ wont be going anywhere, anytime soon. I wish them well, they are going to need plenty of help!
For those who have never been to the area of NJ populated by refineries, it is the most foul of places. The air is beyond nasty. Sure, it's better than it was years ago when the sun was orange at mid day. However, it is still a God Awful place.
Posted by: Franklin E. Fraitus | 16 December 2008 at 03:27 PM
As a geologist I have knowledge of paleoclimates. There is no record of runaway warming causing an extinction event. The age of the dinosaurs (Mesozoic) was considerably warmer than today and the carbon dioxide(CO2)level in the atmosphere was more than 13 times the amount in today's air. That is the factual base on which our eviro/politicians are screaming "the planet is about to burn up." Never, in my 50 years experience as a professional Earth scientist have I encountered such a web of obfuscation and outright lies aimed at the ellimination of CO2. They would like to reduce it to 100 ppm, a level that I doubt would support enough plant life to feed our overpopulated world. So far they have the world's media in their corner so that they can periodically scream unpresidented Global Warming. They refuse to acknowledge that 1998 is the last warm year and it has been cooling ever since. Hopefully, real science will be able get the attention of the powers-that-be before Obama "bets the farm" thinking he is saving the world.
Posted by: Robert Reynolds | 16 December 2008 at 04:10 PM
Obama and Gore are examples of religious fantics. They are very intolerant pseudo-religious fantics. The same thing that the Left is always accusing the rest of us of having, ever ready to burn witches at the stake. But it's funny; Marxists always seem to be the igniters of the book and body burning, in their crematoria.
They ruthlessly talks of "big die-offs" and condemn Billions of lives in the undeveloped world to early death. All in the name of their rediculous and increasingly brittle GAIAN dogmas.
Marxist of the nationolist varieties bought intot psuedo-scientific claptrap in the 1920s ansd 1930s that sought Eugenic solutions to the "problem" of breeding inferior races. thiose Eugenic programs spawned PP and its stillis offon its killing sprees unabated and supported by these intolerant human liquidators.
They had the same solutions as Dr. Erlich who wanted famines for billions in the 1980s as necessary steps to "save the world". Same program just alter the data, slightly.
The same messianic answers will be forthcoming. Necessities for Final Solutions too, I fear.
Posted by: stas peterson | 16 December 2008 at 06:24 PM
Robert, you are a bit behind in your reading of contemporary research. Would you expect someone to simply take you at your word, or the thoughts of those currently directly involved in research? Here's one citation, and I'd be happy to give others;
Extinction Risk from Climate Change, Nature 427, 145-148 (8 January 2004) | doi:10.1038/nature02121
Chris D. Thomas1, Alison Cameron1, Rhys E. Green2, Michel Bakkenes3, Linda J. Beaumont4, Yvonne C. Collingham5, Barend F. N. Erasmus6, Marinez Ferreira de Siqueira7, Alan Grainger8, Lee Hannah9, Lesley Hughes4, Brian Huntley5, Albert S. van Jaarsveld10, Guy F. Midgley11, Lera Miles8,15, Miguel A. Ortega-Huerta12, A. Townsend Peterson13, Oliver L. Phillips8 & Stephen E. Williams14
Climate change over the past approx 30 years has produced numerous shifts in the distributions and abundances of species and has been implicated in one species-level extinction. Using projections of species' distributions for future climate scenarios, we assess extinction risks for sample regions that cover some 20% of the Earth's terrestrial surface. Exploring three approaches in which the estimated probability of extinction shows a power-law relationship with geographical range size, we predict, on the basis of mid-range climate-warming scenarios for 2050, that 15–37% of species in our sample of regions and taxa will be 'committed to extinction'. When the average of the three methods and two dispersal scenarios is taken, minimal climate-warming scenarios produce lower projections of species committed to extinction (approx 18%) than mid-range (approx 24%) and maximum-change (approx 35%) scenarios. These estimates show the importance of rapid implementation of technologies to decrease greenhouse gas emissions and strategies for carbon sequestration.
1. Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation, School of Biology, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK
2. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, The Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire SG19 2DL, UK, and Conservation Biology Group, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK
3. National Institute of Public Health and Environment, P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands
4. Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, North Ryde, 2109, NSW, Australia
5. University of Durham, School of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE, UK
6. Animal, Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Private Bag 3, WITS 2050, South Africa
7. Centro de Referência em Informação Ambiental, Av. Romeu Tórtima 228, Barão Geraldo, CEP:13083-885, Campinas, SP, Brazil
8. School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK
9. Center for Applied Biodiversity Science, Conservation International, 1919 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20036, USA
10. Department of Zoology, University of Stellenbosch, Private Bag X1, Stellenbosch 7602, South Africa
11. Climate Change Research Group, Kirstenbosch Research Centre, National Botanical Institute, Private Bag x7, Claremont 7735, Cape Town, South Africa
12. Unidad Occidente, Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México, D.F. 04510 México
13. Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045 USA
14. Cooperative Research Centre for Tropical Rainforest Ecology, School of Tropical Biology, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD 4811, Australia
15. Present address: UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, UK
Correspondence to: Chris D. Thomas1 Email: [email protected]
Posted by: Will S | 17 December 2008 at 03:12 AM
Obama and Gore are examples of religious fantics.
Stas, you are going farther and farther off the deep end...
Posted by: Will S | 17 December 2008 at 03:13 AM
What possible motive would a poor underpaid climatologist freezing his ass off in Antartica have for lying to us about global warming? Oil companies have billions of reasons to deny valid research (and the geologists who work for them have their own bread and butter reasons). As a geologist Robert, you must understand that the fossil record contains no evidence of prior civilizations with the technology to change the atmosphere in a mere 50 years. Duh! There are numerous events in the geologic record that show major, rapid, and deadly climate changes.
Posted by: creativforce | 17 December 2008 at 07:56 AM
@Robert Reynolds: "Hopefully, real science will be able get the attention of the powers-that-be before Obama "bets the farm" thinking he is saving the world".
After 8 years of environmental terrorism many of us feel that Obama is acting responsibly in dealing with the problem of human caused damage to the atmospheric commons...it IS a commons and WE HAVE been using it as a dump for fossil carbon. Eight billion tons per year of fossil carbon that is dumped by us.
The irony is that if we did use the precautionary principle, that is err on the side of caution in terms of the carbon burden on the atmosphere, we would all be better off economically, there would be an opportunity to create several million new local jobs, there would be far lower taxes, less government regulation (with distributed generation of power), greater national security (no need to steal oil for the benefit of BP, Shell, Exxon,Total etc), a highly reduced trade deficit, a highly reduced military budget.
A renewable energy based economy would be better for everyone....everyone that is except those who are invested in business as usual. All of the reluctance to stop putting fossil carbon into the atmosphere is coming from industries that have a sunk investment in continuing the practice. There is no advantage to anyone else!
Posted by: bud | 17 December 2008 at 08:11 AM
Of course CO2 was higher in the past, and temps and sea levels were also higher. But the sun was also dimmer.
The AGW deniers are missing the point here: humanity has invested trillions of dollars in coastal infrastructure and settlement patterns based on the sea levels where they are now, and based on current climate patterns. Like bacteria in a petri dish, we have filled all niches, or will be fairly soon. Any change or reduction to our carrying capacity will only have bad results. We are riding the edge.
Posted by: Mark_BC | 17 December 2008 at 09:37 AM