White House Budget Would Eliminate DOE Clean Cities Program, Decimate Support for Clean Transportation

However, ultimately Congress will decide how much to allocate to these important federal programs.  The Congressional appropriations subcommittees will make budget decisions this month.  Let your voice be heard to keep the program at the same levels as in past year by signing the letter at this link.

http://www.transportationenergypartners.org/policy-funding/policies

Also, please contact your Members of the House and Senate directly and urge them to protect funding for the DOE Clean Cities program.

Did you know the Clean Cities Program gives better tangible results than most other federal programs?  See resent study results on how the Clean Cities Program Delivers.

Evaluating the Impacts of the Clean Cities Program
World Resources Institute China Office/UNC Chapel Hill Study
Published in Science of the Total Environment
June 2016

DOWNLOAD COMPLETE STUDY: PDF

Goal of study:
Examining the Clean Cities program’s impact on air quality and petroleum demand reduction between 1990 and 2010 by comparing counties located inside and outside the boundaries of Clean Cities coalitions (CCCs).

Findings:

• The Clean Cities program is positively associated with a decrease in the number of days with bad air quality (3.7% decrease). Counties located in CCC regions experienced larger improvements in air quality than those located outside CCC Cities regions. There is some evidence that air quality in counties with CCC designation has improved at faster rates than that of non-CCC counties, even when controlling for other factors such as population growth, decreased industrial activity and changes in the economy.

• Clean Cities discourages driving to work (2.9% decrease) and encourages transit ridership (2.1% increase), potentially yielding a reduction in transportation-related air pollution.

•  The Clean Cities program is effective in promoting alternative fueling stations. Counties with CCCs had 12.9% more alternative fueling stations than those outside CCC areas.
The Clean Cities program includes the interrelated strategies of grants, education and training, and diversity of participants.

•  Councils of governments, metropolitan planning organizations, cities, fuel suppliers and transit agencies are routinely members of CCCs, and they make land use and transportation investments. The institutional composition of CCCs and the coordination with other state and local polices are quite important and deserve further research.

Methodology:

•  Air Quality Index (AQI), which considers all criteria pollutants within a geographic area based on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), was used as the measurement of overall air quality.

•  Differences in air quality can be attributed to alternative fuels strategy and/or VMT reduction strategy.

• The number of alternative fueling stations in the county was used as an indicator.

•  Private vehicle occupancy and transit ridership were used as proxies for a VMT reduction strategy, because VMT data are not consistently available at a sub-metropolitan level.

•  428 counties were sampled, including 231 counties within CCC regions and 197 counties outside of them, adjacent to CCCs.

•  The “Difference in Difference” (DiD) approach, a common method for evaluating the effect of a policy intervention, was used to evaluate the effectiveness of the Clean Cities program.