Posted on 07/26/2007 6:43:07 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
California air quality regulators on Thursday considered what would be the nation's toughest emission standards for diesel-powered vehicles such as bulldozers, airport baggage trucks and ski resort snowcats.
If adopted, the rules would force the oldest and most polluting pieces of equipment out of service and require construction firms and other companies to spend billions on new vehicles or engine retrofits.
The clean-air proposal came under immediate criticism from industry representatives. They said it asked too much of contractors and equipment retailers in too little time.
"Our industry has done nothing wrong," said Gordon Downs, owner of Downs Equipment Rental in Bakersfield, who estimated the rule would cost his company $2.1 million in the first year alone. "Why are we being punished by the very state we helped to build?"
The standards before the California Air Resources Board would require emissions from backhoes, forklifts and other forms of diesel equipment to be cleaned up gradually beginning in 2010. The rules would be phased in through 2020 for fleets of large vehicles and 2025 for smaller equipment.
They are separate from the first-of-its-kind global warming law California passed last year, which requires a significant reduction of greenhouse gas emissions statewide by 2025.
The rules being debated Thursday would be the largest crackdown on diesel emissions by California air regulators. They are intended to clean up the state's smoggy skies by targeting nitrogen oxide and air pollutants known as particulate matter that can become embedded in lung tissue.
An estimated 180,000 vehicles would have to be retrofitted with cleaner-burning technology or replaced.
"This is one of the last sectors to get regulated," said Andy Katz of Breathe California, a grassroots public health organization based in the San Francisco Bay area. "It's time for the construction industry to also come forward and do their part."
Construction equipment and other off-road vehicles are California's second-largest source of diesel-generated particulate pollution, a toxic group of soot, ash and other compounds. Trucks and buses are the biggest source.
The pollutants targeted in the rule - particulate matter and nitrogen oxide - are blamed for premature deaths, respiratory ailments and cardiovascular problems. The standards under consideration are projected to prevent 4,000 premature deaths, 110,000 asthma-related cases and 9,200 cases of acute bronchitis over 20 years, according to an analysis by the air board.
The requirements also would save up to $26 billion in health care costs by 2030, according to air board projections.
"Air pollution has real impacts on real people. They are not just statistics," said Kate Lefkowitz, California outreach coordinator for the Union of Concerned Scientists.
She urged the board not to give industry any more time to comply with the proposed rules.
The Air Resources Board had planned to vote on the regulations in May but delayed action in an attempt to address the opposition from the construction industry.
At the heart of the issue is how quickly and cost-effectively businesses and local governments can modernize their fleets of heavy-duty machines that run on diesel engines. By design, that type of equipment is built to last for more than 30 years, and companies don't expect to replace it sooner.
Construction industry officials said the cost to companies and government agencies would be more than $13 billion.
"They don't have the kind of money to make these changes in the timeline of the proposal," said Mike Self, executive director of the Builders' Exchange of Stockton Inc., a group that represents 650 contractors, suppliers and manufacturers in the San Joaquin Valley.
Industry representatives described the rule as similar to asking a middle-class family to replace their used Chevrolet with a new Mercedes.
Construction companies operate about half the vehicles that would be regulated. They asked the air board for an additional five years, until 2025, to have fleets of large vehicles comply with the new pollution standards. Large vehicles are those with engines of more than 5,000 horsepower.
Erik White, a diesel expert at the Air Resources Board, said industry officials had inflated the cost estimate of complying with the proposed rule. They assumed that all companies would have to buy new equipment rather than install retrofits on older engines, he said.
The air board's economic analysis estimated the rule would cost $3 billion a year. For example, that could raise the cost of a $450,000 house by $1,000, or $6 a month over the life of a 30-year mortgage.
The diesel regulations also would help the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California meet federal air standards by cutting nitrogen dioxide by 187,000 tons and particulate matter by 33,000 tons by 2030.
Cool. I need a snow cat.
This should put used ones on the market for pennies on the dollar.
The best scenario would be for the Golden State to lose a big chunk of residents and then go bankrupt just to show the world
what the global warming fraud is all about.
I think anyone with a job or a business that involves machinery should just refuse to go to or from or operate within California.
LLS
A million less illegal drivers, problem solved. Crystal clear air.
Not one dime...they do it for free.
Damn nanny state.
Meanwhile westerly winds carry tons of soot, toxins and so-called greenhouse gases from China’s smokestack industries every day into California. Jobs will be going in the opposite direction.
buy stock in Cummins
Either the government or the reporter is ignorant about economics. This equipment will only be “forced” out of Kalifornia, at a loss in value, and will have to be replaced with brand new equipment at much higher cost.
In their rush to clean the air, it would look like the advocates of this proposed regulation have not taken the cost to the environment of making the new equipment into account. After all, when Cat makes a new dozer, it uses a tremendous amount of energy to smelt the iron, turn it into steel, fabricate the parts, etc. All this activity has its own environmental cost. But I guess since Cat doesn’t use any steel mills in Kali, it doesn’t count against pollution in Kali.
And of course, the State will be clueless as to why jobs are leaving the State when small companies move or go bust, and when those companies that are left must raise their rates and prices to cover the new, and unnecessary costs.
But, when have economic facts ever stopped socialists on their way to building utopia?
How about the poor Mexicans driving the clapped out beaters (with the faded License Applied For tag) that pour blue smoke? When are they going to take care of that problem?
Thanks. I’ll check it out.
Just making space for Asian pollution.
[The pollutants targeted in the rule - particulate matter and nitrogen oxide - are blamed for premature deaths, respiratory ailments and cardiovascular problems. The standards under consideration are projected to prevent 4,000 premature deaths, 110,000 asthma-related cases and 9,200 cases of acute bronchitis over 20 years, according to an analysis by the air board.
The requirements also would save up to $26 billion in health care costs by 2030, according to air board projections.]
Lies, lies, and more damn lies.
They just make this stuff up and the media spews it out.
“Analysis by the air board” my arse. They blow way more smoke than the dirtiest old Diesel.
It's a good thing politicians don't have to produce anything worthwhile, or they'd all be fired or imprisoned.
California should be looking to the pollution that touches down from China.
I work for a trucking logistics company. Our drivers hate going to California, for one thing they can’t get out of that state fast enough due to the clogged highways, but their freight has to be within a certain limit. Some of our 3rd party carriers are contemplating not delivering to California altogether.
bookmark for later read.
Appears to be California Politics as usual, Dems out of control, but will have to come back and read it won’t I.
LLS
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.