Filed under: Trends, Government/Legal, Green
EPA going soft on automakers?
Environmental
groups will no doubt be disappointed to hear that the new clean air regulations imposed upon automakers by the
Environmental Protection Agency will cost companies less than $1 per vehicle. The new regulations mostly address
pollutants that come from exhaust tail pipes, predominantly on a cold startup.
Most of the new regulations hit gasoline itself, including a requirement that petroleum refiners spend about $500 million to reduce benzene (a carcinogen) in fuel.
Automakers haven't responded yet, but environmental groups already have. Groups like Clean Air Watch are criticizing the EPA for doing little to lessen pollutants in diesel exhaust.
[Source: AutoWeek]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Gunnar Heinrich 10:11AM (3/17/2006)
Reducing benzene in gasoline does sound promissing - as long as they don't replace it with something just as bad and half as useful.
http://www.automobilesdeluxe.blogspot.com
Reply
Steve C. 10:41AM (3/17/2006)
What I still can't understand is why all the focus on emissions is on the newest cars being produced. Tests done years ago in Los Angeles showed that some absurd percentage -- like 90-95% -- of auto pollution is caused by far less than 5% of the cars on the road. Further, there are remote testing tools that can "sniff" which cars are actually doing the polluting so enforcement wouldn't be that difficult.
So, what's the rub? You got it -- the most polluting vehicles are older ones or ones that are not properly maintained. In other words, cars that are disproportionately owned by poorer people. I remember advocacy groups getting their panties in a bunch on this one, saying it was inherently prejudicial and biased to begin targeting those polluting cars. Poor people needed transportation in Los Angeles and they couldn't be forced to bring their cars into compliance with pollution standards.
So the California clean air folks just continue to crank down the requirements for newer cars, I guess under the theory that the newer cars can "inhale" the heavy pollution caused by the older cars, thereby actually cleaning the air.
What a joke.
Reply
Mal Fuller 10:42AM (3/17/2006)
"EPA going soft on automakers?"
Of course. Look who's in the White House!
Reply
bhtooefr 11:07AM (3/17/2006)
Of course, there's a way to get around this.
Stop ratcheting up the requirements so high on the newer cars, so that they don't need as expensive emissions controls, and can be cheaper. Then, the newer less polluting (face it, they'll be less polluting than the older cars even without the "mandatory ratchet them down before they've got the current generation figured out" crap...) cars will be on the roads, and the older ones off the roads. PROBLEM SOLVED.
Reply
the friendly grizzly 11:26AM (3/17/2006)
Yeah, look who's in the White House, he wants all to die from smog. But first he has to go down to the water treatment plant and toss in a dose of arsenic. Don't forget that!
With cars as clean as they are now, every new standard just gets crazier.
The BIG problem is not the handful of old cars, it is the old cars that are badly out of tune, broken, worn out, or whatever. Many of these are allowed on the road because their owners wangle a "I'm too poor to get it fixed" exemption, thus making the whole smog check every two years nothing more than another revenue-generating scam.
Reply
Richard Warren 11:32AM (3/17/2006)
#3 Somebody is IN the White House?
Reply
Corey W. 11:48AM (3/17/2006)
They should make yearly inspections mandatory, not a slap to people too poor to keep up their vehicles, but for safety and environmental reasons, an automobile should be keep up to a certain levels/standards.
Reply
Frank 11:55AM (3/17/2006)
#3 and #4
When Clinton was in he gave a pass to the automakers too. So take you pick: Republicans protecting auto businesses from the EPA or Democrats protecting auto workers from the EPA.
If they did impose the regulations they wanted you two would be crying "it's not fair!" because you wouldn't be able to buy the vehicles you really wanted. Paleeez.
Reply
Mike 2:17PM (3/17/2006)
Gunnar, you're aware that every post you make already has a link to your blog, right? Your name is a clickable link.
Reply
Richard Warren 5:02PM (3/17/2006)
#7, actually I wouldn't "be crying "it's not fair!" because you wouldn't be able to buy the vehicles you really wanted."
The EPA has been watered down within the current administration. Just about any enviromental issue gets watered down.
Every president has given more time to the automakers and industry.
This week scientists and NASA data collected from 1950 on are showing that we truly are having an impact on the enviroment.
Like I said "Someone actually IS in the White House?"
Reply
Emmanuel 6:59PM (3/17/2006)
You know we need to bring MORE DIESELS CARS HERE to the USA!!! I have a 06 Jetta TDI that runs on Biodiesel,gets 700 miles to a tank and better on the pocket!CARB doen not have a clue and the EPA are Diesel non wanting in this country,no wounder EUROPE people say were are just DUMB!yea let's buy an soccor mom VAN and get 15MPG way to go USA!!!
Reply
Charlie Peters 8:14PM (3/17/2006)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - STATE AND CONSUMER SERVICES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
August 25, 2005
The Honorable Sally Lieber
California State Assembly
State Capitol, Room 3091
Sacramento, California 95814
RE: AB 386 (Lieber): OPPOSE
Dear Assembly Member Lieber:
We regret to inform you that the Department of Consumer Affairs (Department) has taken an OPPOSE position on your bill, AB 386. This bill would shift oversight of and responsibility for the Smog Check program from the Bureau of Automotive Repair to the Air Resources Board.
Both, the Bureau of Automotive Repair and the Air Resources Board play very different yet important roles in implementing the Smog Check program, and this bill could result in a dramatic shift of the balance in the oversight and responsibility for the program. The Department is concerned that such a shift would adversely affect consumers and licensees who rely on the Bureau of Automotive Repairs experience and unique perspective in implementing the program.
Should you have any questions regarding our position, please contact me at 327-5196.
Sincerely,
KRISTIN TRIEPKE, Deputy Director
Division of Legislative and Regulatory Review
cc: Richard Costigan, Legislative Secretary, Office of the Governor
Happy Chastain, Deputy Secretary, Legislation, State and Consumer Services Agency
(CAPP contact: Charlie Peters / (510) 537-1796 / cappcharlie@earthlink.net)
Reply
Charlie Peters 8:25PM (3/17/2006)
ET Blast # 22662
From: The Bureau of Automotive Repair
To: All licensed stations
Subject: LOW-PRESSURE FUEL EVAPORATIVE TESTING WORKSHOPS
Message: March 13, 2006
LOW-PRESSURE FUEL EVAPORATIVE TESTING WORKSHOPS
ATTENTION STATION OWNER:
The Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR) and the Air Resources Board (ARB) have scheduled a series of workshops to discuss adding low-pressure fuel evaporative testing to the Smog Check inspection. This inspection would affect 1976 through 1995 model-year vehicles. The purpose of these workshops is to provide the opportunity for interested parties to provide input in advance of the formal regulation hearing process.
Low-pressure evaporative testing refers to an inspection for leaks of a vehicle's fuel tank and vapor lines. The inspection requires the use of specially designed leak detection equipment that Smog Check stations would need to purchase. The estimated cost of the equipment is $2000-$3000. The leak detection equipment uses a small amount of pressure (about 1/2 psi) introduced through the fuel tank filler neck to determine if the system leaks. If the test determines that the vehicle's fuel evaporative system has leaks, the vehicle would fail the test and have to be repaired in order to pass the Smog Check test. BAR's roadside testing in 2005 shows that about 11% of the affected model-year vehicles will likely fail. The ARB has concluded that such testing is a cost-effective emissions reduction strategy to help the State meet its air pollution requirements.
Please join us at one of the following meetings:
April 4, 2006, 6:30 pm to 8 pm
California Environmental Protection Agency
1001 I Street, Sierra Room
Sacramento, CA 95814
This meeting will also be webcast
April 18, 2005, 6:30 pm to 8 pm
Air Resources Board
9530 Telstar Avenue
El Monte, CA 91731
April 20, 2006, 6:30 pm to 8 pm
Four Points by Sheraton Hotel
5121 Hopyard Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
(CAPP contact: Charlie Peters / (510) 537-1796 / cappcharlie@earthlink.net)
Reply
Charlie Peters 8:28PM (3/17/2006)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
MEETING OF THE INSPECTION & MAINTANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
Tuesday, April 26, 2005 / California Department of Consumer Affairs / 400 R Street,
First Floor Hearing Room / Sacramento, California
(snip) go to page 170
MR. PETERS: Yes, now that the private conversations have ended, I'll continue. This is Charlie Peters, Clean Air Performance Professionals. What we've got here, it appears to me, as though to be making a business effort to make some money off of providing industry to the State of California. Going back to 1991 when I went to the Air Resources Board for the IM Review Committee meetings there, the Tom and Tom Show, EPA was there and making their presentations as to why we had to go to the enhanced program, and talked all of the improvements in hydrocarbon by the program were from the fuel evap testing proposal.
We went for many wears never did anything because it was all baloney because it wouldn't work. Nobody was able to make it work at all.
I see no real evidence that anything here - there's some strong questions as to whether any of this is still going to work, but we are still bound and determined to get a whole lot of money from the people that provide the program without necessarily making any benefits.
I would say to you, sir, that we've been proposing an audit of the program to find out if what's broken gets fixed, and you can look at the fuel evap hoses and find probably most of the faults that you'll find with the equipment and fix them, and find out if in any of the problems that we got by knowing which cars should fail and finding out if in fact they got fixed, and if they didn't, finding an opportunity to get them fixed, which would probably double, triple, maybe a lot better the effectiveness of the CAP dollars being spent, improve the performance of the program, cut the fraud, improve the failure rate and benefit in excess of 1,000 tons a day.
So, but of course, you can't consider that because I'm not here with a huge pile of money that I'm ready to pay anybody to help me get my job done. To hell with the consumer, to hell with the air. We're going to take care of the contractors who wish to make money here and not look at something that's a real possibility that I have said to you, Mr. Chairman, probably a thousand times, and you sit there with a look on your face that, oh, gee, Charlie doesn't have any money here, so we don't care about him, we don't care about the air, we don't care about the customer, we just care about making some money for our contractor friends, and I'm tired of it, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR WEISSER: I hope that felt good, Charlie. Next question.
MR.PETERS: I'll continue if you like, sir.
CHAIR WEISSER: No, I wouldn't. Sit down.
http://www.imreview.ca.gov/meetings/transcripts/transcript_april2605.pdf
(CAPP contact: Charlie Peters / (510) 537-1796 / cappcharlie@earthlink.net)
Reply
Wes 9:43AM (3/24/2006)
Small cars are the way to go. Even better is Small diesel powered cars. Any car that gets above 45mpgs should not be compared to a 10mpg Hummer.
Reply