Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
147871949
label
Climate Change Other Café/Clean Cars/Fuels [3]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
147871949
contentType
document
title
Climate Change Other Café/Clean Cars/Fuels [3]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Office of Environmental Initiatives (Clinton Administration)
Roger Ballentine's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
147871949
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-132015705-20171093F-009-004-2019
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
232ea4f76fa336f6
ocrText
FOIA Number: 2017-1093-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Office of Environmental Initiatives
Series/Staff Member:
Roger Ballentine
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
19510
FolderID:
Folder Title:
Climate Change Other Café/Clean Cars/Fuels [3]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
62
1
1
1
GM
DEBORAH I. DINGELL
President
General Motors Foundation
July 2, 1999
Mr. Roger Ballentine
Office of the Vice President
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
The attached article in USA Today shows that CAFE has
political opponents on both sides and continues to be a
political issue everywhere, not just the Midwest.
Deloble
P.S. I am also attaching a copy of the UAW letter to the Hill
opposing CAFE increases.
Beth Violz suffested I send Thes to
you.
Suite 401
E-mail: LNUSGMB. [email protected]
1660 "L" Street, N.W.
Office Phone: 202-775-5068
Washington, DC 20036
Fax: 202-775-5077
Monuay
gaug
Express
Ш
Allines, logemer Commenium und or
flights today between Burling-
on a deal giving a free round-
United terminal.
partners, serves over 500 cities in nearly 100 countries 01
ton, Vt., and its Cleveland hub.
trip ticket between London and
22 U.S. cities with each econo-
Sky ple: American now of-
Two-for-one: British Air-
fers Uno pizzas on many in-
by Oct. 1. Free ticket is good
ternational flights.
©1999 Northwest Airlines,
NOR
my round trip bought for flights
KLM
ways extended until midnight
www.nwa.com
1-800-22
[712199]
SPECIAL REPORT
Death by the gallon
A USA TODAY analysis of previously unpublished fatality statistics disc
that 46,000 people have died because of a 1970s-era push for greater fue
ciency that has led to smaller cars.
By James R. Healey
Myths abou
USA TODAY
small cars
Californian James Bragg, who helps
other people buy cars, knows he'll
CAR FUEL
Myths about small cars
squirm when his daughter turns 16.
Here are two of the most
"She's going to want a little Chevy
ECONOMY
Cavalier or something. I'd rather take
why they are wrong:
the same 10 to 12 thousand bucks and
STANDARDS
put it into a 3-year-old (full-size Mercu-
ry) Grand Marquis, for safety.
1
Small cars have a
rate because they
8
"I want to go to her high school gradu-
those big sport-util
ation, not her funeral."
over the roads.
Hundreds of people are killed in
0
small-car wrecks each year who would
Fact: In 1997, latest-av
8
survive in just slightly bigger, heavier ve-
ment data, 56% of small-
hicles, government and insurance indus-
volved only small cars: 46
try research shows.
car crashes, 10% from sn
More broadly, in the 24 years since a
ning into each other. Just
9
landmark law to conserve fuel, big cars
small-car deaths in 1997 i
have shrunk to less-safe sizes and small
sions with midsize and lar
cars have poured onto roads. As a result,
46,000 people have died in crashes they
136 out of 12,144 total sn
would have survived in bigger, heavier
that year.
cars, according to USA TODAY's analysis
of crash data since 1975, when the Ener-
Small cars are nec
gy Policy and Conservation Act was
passed.
2
cause they pollute
The law and the corporate average fuel
cars.
economy (CAFE) standards it imposed
Fact Federal regulation
have improved fuel efficiency. The aver-
same pollution restrictions
age of passenger vehicles on U.S. roads is
big and small. The limits a
20 miles per gallon VS. 14 mpg in 1975.
"grams per mile" of accep
But the cost has been roughly 7,700
not in grams per gallon of
deaths for every mile per gallon gained,
the analysis shows.
Thus, a large Lincoin Towi
Small cars - those no bigger or heavier
V-8 engine can't legally pc
than Chevrolet Cavalier or Dodge Neon -
1975-1998
mile, or 10 miles, or 1,000
comprise 18% of all vehicles on the road,
tiny Chevrolet Metro with
according to an analysis of R.L. Polk regis-
der engine driven the sam
tration data. Yet they accounted for 37% of
vehicle deaths in 1997 - 12,144 people -
according to latest available government
figures. That's about twice the death rate in
big cars, such as Dodge Intrepid, Chevrolet
Impala, Ford Crown Victoria.
Inside
"We have a small-car problem. If you
want to sòlve the safety puzzle, get rid of
small cars," says Brian O'Neill, president of
crash-tests more vehicles, more violently,
AND PASSENGERS
How the analysis wa
Designing a new Ne
the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
The push toward SIT
The institute, supported by auto insurers,
Small sport utilities a
Making small cars Si
than all but the federal government.
Little cars have big disadvantages in
crashes. They have less space to absorb
British Air-
my round trip bought for nights
fers Uno pizzas on many in-
Nort
til midnight
by Oct. 1. Free ticket is good
ternational flights.
www.nwa.com
1-800-225-2525
SPECIAL REPORT
ath by the gallon
TODAY analysis of previously unpublished fatality statistics discovers
00 people have died because of a 1970s-era push for greater fuel effi-
nat has led to smaller cars.
aley
Myths about
small cars
nes Bragg, who helps
1y cars, knows he'll
CAR FUEL
Myths about small cars are strong.
daughter turns 16.
Here are two of the most common and
) want a little Chevy
ECONOMY
why they are wrong:
ething. I'd rather take
2 thousand bucks and
STANDARDS
ar-old (full-size Mercu-
is, for safety.
1
Small cars have a high death
rate because they get hit by
her high school gradu-
those big sport-utility vehicles all
eral."
over the roads.
people are killed in
each year who would
Fact In 1997, latest-available govern-
ghtly bigger, heavier ve-
ment data, 56% of small-car fatalities in-
nt and insurance indus-
volved only small cars: 46% from single-
VS.
car crashes, 10% from small cars run-
in the 24 years since a
ning into each other. Just 1% of
conserve fuel, big cars
small-car deaths in 1997 involved colli-
ess-safe sizes and small
sions with midsize and large SUVs -
onto roads. As a result,
ve died in crashes they
136 out of 12,144 total small-car deaths
ived in bigger, heavier
that year.
) USA TODAY's analysis
ce 1975, when the Ener-
2
Small cars are necessary be-
Conservation Act was
cause they pollute less than big
e corporate average fuel
cars.
) standards it imposed
Fact: Federal regulations impose the
iel efficiency. The aver-
same pollution restrictions on all cars,
vehicles on U.S. roads is
big and small. The limits are stated in
on VS. 14 mpg in 1975.
"grams per mile" of acceptable pollution,
has been roughly 7,700
not in grams per gallon of fuel burned.
mile per gallon gained,
Thus, a large Lincoln Town Car with a
S.
nose no bigger or heavier
V-8 engine can't legally pollute more in a
ivalier or Dodge Neon -
all vehicles on the road,
nalysis of R.L. Polk regis-
1975-1998
mile, or 10 miles, or 1,000 miles, than a
tiny Chevrolet Metro with a three-cylin-
der engine driven the same distance.
hey accounted for 37% of
1997 - 12,144 people -
st available government
out twice the death rate in
Dodge Intrepid, Chevrolet
wn Victoria.
nall-car problem. If you
46,000 DRIVERS
Inside
How the analysis was done, 2B
: safety puzzle, get rid of
Designing a new Neon, 2B
Brian O'Neill, president of
titute for Highway Safety.
ported by auto insurers,
vehicles, more violently,
AND PASSENGERS
The push toward small cars, 3B
Small sport utilities a worry, 3B
Making small cars safer, 3B
ederal government.
ve big disadvantages in
ave less space to absorb
: less the car absorbs, the
inside have to.
3 don't have the weight to
those big sport-utility vehicles all
people are killed in
over the roads.
small-car wrecks each year who would
survive in just slightly bigger, heavier ve-
Fact: In 1997, latest-available govern-
hicles, government and insurance indus-
ment data, 56% of small-car fatalities in-
try research shows.
volved only small cars: 46% from single-
More broadly, in the 24 years since a
car crashes, 10% from small cars run-
landmark law to conserve fuel, big cars
ning into each other. Just 1% of
have shrunk to less-safe sizes and small
small-car deaths in 1997 involved colli-
cars have poured onto roads. As a result,
sions with midsize and large SUVs -
46,000 people have died in crashes they
136 out of 12,144 total small-car deaths
would have survived in bigger, heavier
that year.
cars, according to USA TODAY's analysis
of crash data since 1975, when the Ener-
gy Policy and Conservation Act was
2
Small cars are necessary be-
passed.
cause they pollute less than big
The law and the corporate average fuel
cars.
economy (CAFE) standards it imposed
have improved fuel efficiency. The aver-
Fact Federal regulations impose the
age of passenger vehicles on U.S. roads is
same pollution restrictions on all cars,
20 miles per gallon VS. 14 mpg in 1975.
big and small. The limits are stated in
But the cost has been roughly 7,700
grams per mile" of acceptable pollution,
deaths for every mile per gallon gained,
not in grams per gallon of fuel burned.
the analysis shows.
Thus, a large Lincoln Town Car with a
Small cars - those no bigger or heavier
V-8 engine can't legally pollute more in a
than Chevrolet Cavalier or Dodge Neon -
comprise 18% of all vehicles on the road,
according to an analysis of R.L. Polk regis-
1975-1998
mile, or 10 miles, or 1,000 miles, than a
tiny Chevrolet Metro with a three-cylin-
tration data. Yet they accounted for 37% of
der engine driven the same distance.
vehicle deaths in 1997 - 12,144 people -
according to latest available government
figures. That's about twice the death rate in
big cars, such as Dodge Intrepid, Chevrolet
Impala, Ford Crown Victoria.
"We have a small-car problem. If you
AND 46,000 PASSENGERS
DRIVERS
Inside
want to solve the safety puzzle, get rid of
How the analysis was done, 2B
small cars," says Brian O'Neill, president of
Designing a new Neon, 2B
the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
The push toward small cars, 3B
The institute, supported by auto insurers,
Small sport utilities a worry, 3B
crash-tests more vehicles, more violently,
than all but the federal government.
Making small cars safer, 3B
Little cars have big disadvantages in
crashes. They have less space to absorb
crash forces. The less the car absorbs, the
more the people inside have to.
And small cars don't have the weight to
protect themselves in crashes with other ve-
hicles. When a small car and a larger one
collide, the bigger car stops abruptly; that's
bad enough. But the little one slams to a stop,
then instantly and violently accelerates
backward as the heavier car's momentum
powers into it. People inside the lighter car
experience body-smashing levels of force in
two directions, first as their car stops moving
Please see SPECIAL REPORT next page
2B FRIDAY, JULY 2, 1999
USA TODAY
DEATH BY THE GALLON
Crash test shows immediate effect when small car Kia Sephia hits barrier at 40 mph
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
In these shots from videotape, Kia Sephia approaches a
Left front half of car smashes into barrier. Within a few
Momentum drives car harder into barrier. Windshield pil-
barrier at 40 mph during an Insurance Institute for High-
Air bag smoke, powder pour out windshield. Dummy
thousandths of a second, the hood buckles from force of
lar, roof begin to buckle. Front tire crushes back into floor,
way Safety test. The barrier is designed to make the crash
slams backward. Total time elapsed: 0.10-0.12 of a sec-
impact and the front fender is shoved into the tire. Dummy
pushing driver's legs up violently enough to cause serious
equal to hitting an identical car at about 37 mph. The bar-
ond. Kia meets government safety standards but scored
representing driver remains upright because crash force
injury. Air bag inflates. Rear of car rises as front abruptly
rier is set to the driver's side to test safety belt, air bag.
the worst of small cars tested by IIHS. On better-scoring
has not traveled into passenger compartment.
stops. Time elapsed: about 0.05 of a second.
cars, floor, roof and windshield pillar don't bend as much.
Push for better mileage raises death toll
Continued from IB
in Detroit in March that it
forward, then as it reverses. In
What is a small car?
Beetle shines in rating of crashworthiness
would be safer to get rid of the
the heavier car, bodies are sub-
The federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines car
smallest vehicles, not the larg-
sizes by interior space. But that leads to anomalies such as the
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a research organization supported by auto in-
est.
jected to less-destructive decel-
EPA fuel-economy guide lumping Rolls Royce with Japanese
surers, has found only one small car that "turned in a good overall performance" in IIHS 40-
eration and no "bounce-back."
Drawing on crash research
mini-cars. Most common-sense classification systems try,
mile-per-hour crash tests - the 1998-99 Volkswagen New Beetle. IIHS named the car a "best
The regulations don't man-
from eight countries, Lund and
date small cars. But small,
instead, to portray cars by exterior size, usually measured by
pick," a designation not given any other small car.
Chapline predicted that if all
overall length or by wheelbase, the distance between the front
Here, in order, is how IIHS rates other recent-model small cars it has tested for overall
lightweight vehicles that can
cars and trucks weighing less
and back wheels, or by a combination of length and wheelbase.
crashworthiness.
perform satisfactorily using
than 2,500 pounds were re-
Sometimes weight is a factor. For this report, small cars are those
low-power, fuel-efficient en-
placed by slightly larger ones
often known as subcompacts and mini-compacts. Such cars
Average
gines are the only affordable
weighing 2,500 to 2,600 pounds,
generally are 180 inches long or less; have wheelbases of 105
'99 VW Jetta/Golf
way áutomakers have found to
there would be "nearly 3% few-
inches or less; weigh 2,600 pounds or less. Here are examples
'96-'99 Honda Civic
meet the CAFE (pronounced
er fatalities, or an estimated
of various-sized small cars:
'98-'99 Toyota Corolla/Chevrolet Prizm
ka-FE) standards.
savings of more than 700 lives"
Some automakers acknowl-
Mini-
'98-'99 Hyundai Elantra
a year. That's like trading a
edge the danger.
Chevy Metro coupe
'97-'99 Ford Escort/Mercury Tracer
1989 Honda Civic, which
'95-'99 Saturn SL
"A small car, even with the
Weight:
weighs 2,000 pounds, for a '99
'98-'99 Nissan Sentra
best engineering available
About 1,900
Civic, at 2,500 pounds.
physics says a large car will
pounds
93.1 inches
'99 Mazda Protégé
Conversely, the researches
Jack Collins, Nissan's
149.4
Marginal
est cars, SUVs and pickups, and
SPECIAL REPORT
Standard
'00 Dodge/Plymouth Neon
putting their occupants into the
Toyota Corolla
next-size-smaller cars, SUVs
Poor
Weight:
and pickups would kill about
U.S. marketing chief.
AP
About 2,400
'97-'99 Mitsubishi Mirage
300 more people a year.
Tellingly, most small-car
Bug me: Volkswagen Beetle praised for performance.
pounds
'98-'99 Kia Sephia
crash deaths involve only small
97.1 inches
cars - 56% in 1997, from the
174.3 inches
More information on the IIHS tests is available via the Internet at www.hwysafety.org Results of extensive U.S government crash tests at a less-violent
Market skepticism
latest government data. They
35 mph are available (arranged by year and model) at www.nhtsa.dot.gov/ncap.
Large-
U.S. consumers, culturally
run into something else, such as
Chevrolet Cavalier/
prejudiced in favor of bigness,
a tree, or into one another.
Pontiac Sunbird
fuel economy generally is
via tougher CAFE rules.
lion a year. Outside the USA,
aren't generally interested in
In contrast, just 1% of small-
good, "the undesirable attri-
Activists especially fume
roads are narrow and gas is $5
small cars these days:
car deaths - 136 people - oc-
Weight:
About 2,600
butes of the CAFE system are
that trucks, though used like
a gallon, SO Europeans buy
Car-buying expert Bragg -
curred in crashes with midsize
pounds
104.1 inches
significant," and CAFE de-
cars, have a more lenient
5 million small cars a year;
author of Car Buyer's and
or big sport-utility vehicles in
180.7 inches
serves reconsideration.
CAFE requirement, resulting in
Asians, 2.6 million.
Leaser's Negotiating Bible -
'97, according to statistics from
A NHTSA study completed
more CO₂.
Automakers are working on
says few customers even ask
the National Highway Traffic
Source Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
By Alejandro Gonzalez, USA TODAY
in 1995 notes: "During the past
"People would be much saf-
lightweight bigger cars that
about small cars.
Safety Administration, the
18 years, the office of Technol-
er in bigger cars. In fact, they'd
could use small engines, fuel-
Small-car sales are half what
agency that enforces safety
Small cars will always be
efficient. The full-size Dodge In-
ogy Assessment of the United
be very safe in Ford Excur-
cell electric vehicles and die-
they were in their mid-'80s hey-
and fuel-efficiency rules.
around."
trepid, with V-6 engine, auto-
States Congress, the National
sions," says Jim Motavalli, edi-
sel-electric hybrid power
day. Just 7% of new-vehicle
NHTSA does not routinely pub-
But small cars have an errat-
matic transmission, air condi-
Safety Council, the Brookings
tor of E: The Environmental
plants that could run big cars
shoppers say they'll consider a
lish that information. It per-
ic history in the USA. They
tioning and power accessories,
Institution, the Insurance In-
Magazine, referring to a large
using little fuel.
small car, according to a 1999
formed special data calcula-
made the mainstream only
hits the average 27.5 mpg.
stitute for Highway Safety, the
sport-utility vehicle Ford Motor
But marketable U.S. versions
study by California-based auto
tions at USA TODAY's request.
when the nation panicked over
"Improved fuel economy
General Motors Research Lab-
plans to introduce in Septem-
are five, or more likely 10,
industry consultant AutoPacif-
Champions of small cars like
fuel shortages and high prices
doesn't necessarily mean light-
oratories and the National
ber. "But are we all supposed to
years off. That's assuming de-
ic. That would cut small-car
to point out that even when the
starting in 1973. The 1975 ener-
er, inherently less-safe vehi-
Academy of Sciences all
drive around in tanks? You'd be
velopment continues, break-
sales in half. Those who have
SUV threat is unmasked, other
gy act and fuel efficiency stan-
cles," says Robert Shelton, asso-
agreed that reductions in the
creating that much more glob-
throughs occur and air-pollu-
small cars want out: 82% won't
big trucks remain a nemesis.
dards were the government re-
ciate administrator of NHTSA.
size and weight of passenger
al-warming gas. I demonize
tion rules aren't tightened so
buy another.
NHTSA data shows, however,
sponse to that panic.
Cost. Developing and mar-
cars pose a safety threat."
sport utilities," says Motavalli,
much they eliminate diesels.
To Bragg, the reasons are ob-
that while crashes with pick-
Under current CAFE stan-
keting small cars siphons bil-
Yet there's no serious move
also a car enthusiast and author
Even those dreamboats
vious: "People need a back seat
ups, vans and commercial
dards, the fuel economy of all
lions of dollars from the auto in-
to kill CAFE standards.
of the upcoming book Forward
won't resolve the conflict be-
that holds more than a six-pack
trucks accounted for 28% of
new cars an automaker sells in
dustry. Small cars don't cost
Automakers can't lobby too
Drive: The Race to Build the
tween fuel economy and safety.
and a pizza. And, there's the
small-car deaths in '97, such
the USA must average at least
automakers much less to de-
loudly for fear of branding
Car of the Future.
Their light weight means
safety issue."
crashes also accounted for 36%
27.5 mpg. New light trucks -
sign, develop and manufacture
their small cars unsafe, inviting
Not all scientists agree that
they'll have the same sudden-
That hits home with Ten-
of large-car deaths.
pickups, vans and sport-utility
than bigger, more-profitable ve-
negative publicity and lawsuits.
CO₂ causes global warming or
stop and bounce-back prob-
nessee dad George Poe. He
Others argue that small cars
vehicles - must average 20.7
hicles. But U.S. buyers won't
And Congress doesn't want to
that warming is occurring.
lems as small cars. Improved
went car shopping with teen-
attract young, inexperienced
mpg. Automakers who fall
pay much for small cars, often
offend certain factions by ap-
safety belts and air bags that
age daughter Bethanie recently
drivers. There's some truth
short are fined.
demanding rebates that wipe
pearing too cavalier about fuel
Seeking alternatives
could help have not been devel-
and, at her insistence, came
there, but not enough to explain
In return, "CAFE has an al-
out the $500 to $1,000 profit.
economy. Nor, understandably,
oped.
home with a 1999 Honda Civic.
small cars' out-of-proportion
most lethal effect on auto safe-
Consumers pay, too. Though
does it want to acknowledge its
Worldwide, the market is big
IIHS researchers Adrian
"If it would have been entire-
deaths. About 36% of small-car
ty," says Rep. Joe Knollenberg,
small cars cost less, they also
law has been deadly.
enough to keep small cars in
Lund and Janella Chapline re-
ly up to me, I'd have put her in-
drivers involved in fatal crash-
R-Mich., who sides with the an-
depreciate faster, SO are worth
"I'm concerned about those
business, despite the meager
ported at the Society of Auto-
to a used Volvo or, thinking
es in 1997 were younger than
ti-CAFE sentiments of his
relatively less at trade-in time.
statistics about small cars, but I
U.S. small-car market of 2 mil-
motive Engineers' convention
strictly as a parent, a Humvee."
25; and 25% of the drivers of all
home-state auto industry. Each
And collision insurance is more
don't think we should blame
vehicles involved in fatal
year, starting with fiscal 1996,
expensive. State Farm, the big-
that on the CAFE standards,"
wrecks were that age, accord-
he has successfully inserted
gest auto insurer, charges
says Rep. Henry Waxman, D-
ing to NHTSA data.
language into spending authori-
small-car owners 10% to 45%
Calif., who supported CAFE
How fatality statistics were calculated
zation bills that prohibits using
more than average for collision
and remains a proponent.
Gas shortage worries
federal transportation money
and damage coverage. Owners
Pressure, in fact, is for tough-
USA TODAY's analysis of deaths resulting
year since then, making the total about 46,000
to tighten fuel standards.
of big cars and SUVs get dis-
er standards.
from federal fuel-economy standards uses da-
through 1998.
U.S. motorists have flirted
Even if small cars were safe,
counts up to 45%. "It's based on
Thirty-one senators, mainly
ta and estimates from the National Highway
IIHS President Brian O'Neill says the USA
with small cars for years, at-
there are reasons to wonder
experience," spokesman Dave
Democrats, signed a letter ear-
Traffic Safety Administration and the Insur-
TODAY calculation is reasonable and the
tracted, in small numbers, to
about fuel-economy rules:
Hurst says.
lier this year urging President
ance Institute for Highway Safety.
number of deaths could be even higher.
nimble handling, high fuel
Questionable results.
CAFE has been "a bad mis-
Clinton to back higher CAFE
NHTSA is an arm of the Department of
A 1989-91 NHTSA study analyzed car down-
economy and low prices that
CAFE and its small cars have
take, one really bad mistake. It
standards. And environmental
Transportation and is responsible for enforc-
sizing from 1975-85 as a result of fuel-
make them the only new cars
not reduced overall U.S. gaso-
didn't meet any of the goals,
lobbyists favor small cars as a
ing safety and fuel-economy regulations. IIHS
economy regulations: Cars got 1,000 pounds
some people can afford.
line and diesel fuel consump-
and it distorted the hell out of
way to inhibit global warming.
is a private research organization supported
lighter, wheelbases shrank 10 inches, widths
"Small cars fit best into some
tion as hoped. A strong econo-
the (new-car) market," says
Although federal anti-pollu-
by auto insurance companies.
decreased slightly.
consumers' pocketbooks and
my and growing population
Jim Johnston, fellow at the
tion regulations require that big
A 1995 IIHS study looked at fatalities in-
NHTSA concluded: "Downsizing resulted in
driveways," says Clarence Dit-
have increased consumption.
American Enterprise Institute
cars emit no more pollution
volving and 2-year-old cars, from 1993 mod-
increases of nearly 2,000 fatalities and 20,000
head of the Center for Auto
The U.S. imports more oil now
in Washington and retired Gen-
per mile than small cars, envi-
els back through the '75 models current at the
serious or moderate injuries per year," or 200
when
Dit-
have increased consumption.
A 1995 IIHS study looked at fatalities in-
American Enterprise Institute
NHTSA concluded: "Downsizing resulted in
cars emit no more pollution
low, head of the Center for Auto
The U.S. imports more oil now
volving and 2-year-old cars, from 1993 mod-
in Washington and retired Gen-
increases of nearly 2,000 fatalities and 20,000
per mile than small cars, envi-
Safety, a consumer-activist or-
than when the standards were
els back through the '75 models current at the
eral Motors vice president who
serious or moderate injuries per year," or 200
ronmental activists seize on
ganization in Washington.
imposed.
birth of U.S. corporate average fuel economy
lobbied against the 1975 law.
deaths per 100 pounds of weight reduction.
this: Small engines typical of
Engineer and construction
Irrelevance. Emerging
(CAFE, pronounced ka-FE) standards.
That would total about 22,000 deaths from
small cars burn less fuel, so
manager Kirk Sandvoss of
IIHS found 10,656 more deaths in that 19-
fuel technologies could make
1975-85. But that's too low, NHTSA concluded
Springfield, Ohio, who helped
Here to stay
they emit less carbon dioxide.
the original intent obsolete, not
year period than if the mix of car sizes had
in a follow-up study completed in 1995. A bet-
Carbon dioxide, or CO2, is a
two family members shop for
only by making it easier to re-
not been skewed smaller by CAFE standards.
CAFE is resilient, although
ter estimate: 302 deaths per 100 pounds cut.
naturally occurring gas that's
subcompacts recently, says
cover oil from remote places,
IIHS looked only at 1- and 2-year-old cars,
concern over its effect on
That boosts the 1975-85 tally to 30,200. Since
that's all the car needed.
not considered a pollutant by
but also by converting plentiful
but cars stay on the road a median 8.1 years.
small-car safety is neither new
then, an additional 15,484 have died from
the Environmental Protection
"We built three houses with a
fuels, such as natural gas, into
Divide that by two because each year in the
nor narrow.
Agency, which regulates auto
downsizing, using NHTSA's formula and agen-
VW bug and a utility trailer. We
clean-burning, competitively
IIHS study accounted for two model years,
A 1992 report by the Nation-
cy data on average car weight.
pollution.
made more trips to the lumber
priced fuel.
then multiply by IIHS' 10,656 total. Result:
al Research Council, an arm of
Total dead from downsizing: 45,684.
But those worried about
yard than a guy with a pickup
And new technology is mak-
43,157 additional deaths through 1995. Other
the National Academy of Sci-
global warming say CO₂ is a cul-
truck would, but we got by.
IIHS data suggest close to 1,000 more deaths a
ing bigger, safer cars more fuel
ences, says that while better
By James R. Healey
prit and should be regulated
Neon aims for biggest small car possible
AUBURN HILLS, Mich. - "Why even bother
an inch taller and a bit wider inside than its
making a small car? You don't make much mon-
predecessor. Wheelbase - distance between
ey on 'em. Nobody wants 'em."
front and back wheels - was stretched an inch.
Neon '95 vs. Neon '00
That's not some small-car hater talking. It's
The changes gave about 2 inches more hip
Joe Caddell, manager of small-car operations at
1995
2000
room, nearly an inch more shoulder room, a bit
DaimlerChrysler. In a briefing prior to the car's
model
model
more headroom, an 11% increase in trunk space
launch, Caddell was summarizing challenges his
Months to develop
31
28
and a smoother ride, more like a big car's. Seats
team faced redesigning the Dodge and Ply-
Cost
were raised half an inch SO occupants would feel
$1.3
$703
mouth Neon small car for the 2000 model year.
billion
less vulnerable in traffic. Atop those changes,
million
The '00 Neon is a study of how frustrating the
Neon was restyled to resemble full-size Dodge
Dimensions
U.S. small-car market can be. Automakers need
and Chrysler sedans.
Length (inches)
171.8
174.4
them to meet government fuel-economy stan-
The Neon was, in short, redesigned to be as
Width (inches)
67.4
67.4
dards but often have trouble making money on
big - and big feeling - as possible while still fit-
Height (inches)
54.8
56.0
them. DaimlerChrysler sells Neon in 60 other
ting its assembly line at Belvidere, III.
Weight (lbs.)
2,320
2,564
countries, helping offset what happens here.
The grown-up Neon - starting at $12,890 -
Wheelbase (inches)
104
105
Chrysler spent 31 months and $1.3 billion on
hit dealerships in January. By the time the full
Wheels/tires (inches)
13
14
the original Neon, launched as a 1995 model.
marketing campaign bloomed in March, the
Interior volume
101.7
103.4
Caddell's '00 redo was more efficient but still 28
huge, colorful, fold-out ads in national publica-
(cubic feet)
months and a hefty $703 million.
tions already were offering $1,000 rebates.
Trunk space
11.8
13.1
Caddell says: "We asked everybody, 'What
By Paul Sancya for USA TODAY
That wipes out the profit - and Neon sales
(cubic feet)
kind of small car do you want?' You know what
New Neon: No one wants a small car, says Joe Caddell, DaimlerChrysler's manager of
are down 7% this year despite the good deal.
Base price
the answer was? 'I don't want a small car.'
$8,975 $12,890
small-car operations. So Neon got bigger for model year 2000.
Source: DaimlerChrysler, USA TODAY research
So the '00 Neon grew almost 3 inches longer,
By James R. Healey
USA TODAY FRIDAY.JULY
USA TODAY FRIDAY, JULY 2, 1999 3B
The history of small cars in America
Small cars had a hard time in the USA until shoved into the mainstream by 1970s fuel panics and federal law. Here
are developments surrounding those events. Sources: Krause Publications' Standard Catalogs of imported and Ameri-
can cars, AutoPacific Small Car Consultancy, Facts on File, Daniel Yergin's The Prize, USA TODAY research.
Balance of petroleum power shifts
Recounting the drama of
diesel prices of 50 cents a
1973, it's easy to understand
gallon, up from 30 cents in
why the USA panicked over fuel
as the small car is born
the summer. Spreading the
shortages and prices. But the
ECONO
word via then-popular citi-
stage was set much earlier.
zens' band (CB) radios,
The modern history of small cars in the USA begins just after World War II. The pace
1948
nonunion truckers paralyze
of developments accelerated after the government reacted to 1970s fuel shortages.
traffic on Interstate 84 in
USA becomes a net importer
Connecticut, I-80 in Penn-
1949
of oil but remains world's larg-
sylvania, I-40 between Lit-
Two Volkswagen Beetles, officially known as Type I, are sold in the USA.
est oil producer into the 1960s.
tle Rock and Memphis, the
Indiana Toll Road and
1954
1950s
along some major roads in
U.S. carmakers Nash and Hudson merge to form American Motors Corp., which
Soviet Union overtakes Vene-
West Virginia, Illinois, lowa,
begins selling the Metropolitan, considered first U.S. subcompact. AMC's emphasis
zuela as No. 2 oil producer. So-
Michigan, Nebraska, South
on small cars, despite U.S. preference for big cars, made the company vulnerable.
viet competition drives down oil
Dakota and Nevada.
prices, threatens wealth of Mid-
National Guardsmen and
1957
dle East and other traditional
1973 AP file photo
riot troops are called out.
Toyota enters U.S. market with small sedan called Toyopet, renamed Crown in '59.
oil-producing regions.
Gold rush: California drivers try to fill their tanks after station
Transportation Secretary
But even Toyota can't popularize small cars in '50s. It quits U.S. car market tempo-
owners threatened to shut down over gas price restrictions.
1959
Claude Brinegar implores
rarily, returning with Tiara sedan in '64, Corona sedan in '65.
truckers to end the disrup-
Petroleum Week correspondent Wanda Jablonski intro-
tion, promises Internal Revenue Service price-gouging pa-
1959
duces Venezuela oil minister Juan Pablo Pérez Alfonzo and
trols at truck stops.
Ford introduces 1960 Falcon, 3 feet shorter than regular Fords. Chevrolet introduces
Saudi Arabia oil minister Abdullah Tariki at Arab Oil Congress
Energy Director William Simon bans outdoor holiday light-
1960 Corvair, a radical design with an air-cooled engine in the rear, like VW Beetle.
in Cairo, Egypt. The ministers, discovering they are mutually
ing to conserve fuel needed to generate electricity. Schools
furious over threats to their countries' income and influence,
in cold-weather states stretch winter breaks up to six weeks
1960
begin secret talks that lead to the formation of the Organiza-
to save fuel.
Chrysler introduces Plymouth Val-
tion of Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC.
Public is outraged to learn that U.S. oil companies contin-
liant and Dodge Dart, conventional
ue exporting oil, despite U.S. shortages. Oil firms can get
small cars, to keep up with Falcon
1960
more money selling overseas because OPEC is setting high
and Corvair. Even GM's big-car
OPEC holds first meeting, settles on goal: keeping oil
oil prices for countries allowed to buy, and price controls are
Buick division feels small-car fever
prices up.
in place in the USA. Some U.S. oil even goes to OPEC
and introduces '61 Special.
members.
1971
1964
President Nixon imposes price controls on oil as anti-in-
1974
Ford introduces the Mustang as a
flation move - locking maximum price of gasoline at peak-
Feds order year-round daylight savings time, hoping time
1964½ model. That first Mustang is
season high, heating oil at off-season low. Refiners quickly
shift cuts use of oil. Feds order states to impose 55 mph
a Falcon with a sporty body and in-
1960 Corvair: Has air-cooled engine in rear.
shift to more-profitable gasoline.
speed limit or lose road money.
terior, and optional V-8 engines. An
Embargo leaks. Arab nations needing cash to pay for So-
instant success, it demonstrates that sporty small cars could thrive, even if other
to
pay
small cars couldn't.
1973
viet weapons turn a blind eye to oil shipments that make
Homes, schools, factories in Midwest, West shut during
neutral-country stopovers, then go to the USA.
1968
winter for lack of heating oil, some of which sits undelivered
Service stations charge $1 a gallon for gasoline, three
Toyota begins selling the 1969 Corolla small sedan in the USA, finally hitting on the
for lack of diesel fuel for delivery trucks.
times its pre-embargo price.
right combination of size, price and features to attract free-thinking younger buyers
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator William
In March, OPEC calls off the embargo. Price of crude oil
who ensure the company's future in the
Ruckelshaus tries to shame motorists into conservation,
has risen fourfold, to nearly $10 for a 42-gallon barrel, ensur-
USA.
claiming that heavy, luxurious vehicles burn 20% more gas
ing high fuel prices after the embargo.
than necessary. Cutting 500 pounds would increase fuel
1969
1975
Honda, known only for motorcycles, enters
economy 14%, he says.
Oct. 17, OPEC halts oil sales to USA after U.S. backs Isra-
Congress passes the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
the U.S. car market offering the 600 sedan,
el in the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. OPEC raises prices to other
of 1975, setting corporate average fuel economy (CAFE)
powered by a two-cylinder, 0.6-liter, air-
countries. Gas, diesel shortages occur. Prices zoom.
standards to prevent future shortages.
cooled engine rated 36 horsepower.
In November, the Pentagon commandeers 19.6 million
barrels of petroleum products from 22 reluctant oil compa-
1979
1973
nies that say there isn't enough to go around even before the
U.S.-hater Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini takes over as
General Motors shuts 16 of 24 North Amer-
military seizure. In December, the Pentagon warns that petro-
head of Iran after the shah, a U.S. ally, is overthrown in revo-
Toyota
ican plants a week in December to trim in-
leum shortages could compromise national security.
lution. Khomeini halts oil sales to USA, triggering second
1969 Corolla: Toyota is a hit in USA.
ventories of unsold large and midsize cars,
Dec. 4, independent truckers stage slowdown to protest
round of shortages.
GM's first production cut since 1970. Ford
Motor says it will convert some big-car plants to small-car production, and cuts
back at 13 plants because of a shortage of parts and a decline in big-car sales.
Chrysler announces plans to close six of its seven North American plants three days
the first week of 1974, and convert the seventh
plant to small-car production.
Small trucks pose even
Accidentally perfect in its timing, Honda introduces the Civic small car in April, during
Small-car sales
fuel shortages, replacing the tiny, underpowered 600 model.
Small-car sales peaked at
4 million in 1986, the year
1980 Detroit begins to decode the small-car formula. Ford introduces Escort and twin Mercu-
car and light-truck sales hit
more serious problems
ry Lynx as 1981 small, front-wheel-drive models, ambitiously calling them "world cars."
a record 16.1 million. Since
Ford says that designation means they are good enough to be sold the world over.
then, small cars have lost
favor fast. Some analysts
predict record vehicle sales
Higher center of
have done with cars. The re-
ance Institute for Highway
1981 Chevrolet introduces the front-wheel-drive Cavalier small car in March, as an early '82
this year, which could help
boost small-car sales.
sults are more funereal than
Safety: 300 deaths per 1 million
model, and keeps the rear-drive Chevette, introduced in 1975, in production.
gravity leads to
with small cars, however.
registered small SUVs, VS. an
4.0
Small trucks share small
average 152 deaths per million.
deadly rollovers
cars' size and weight deficien-
Small pickups kill at a rate of
Unique 1985 joint venture between GM and Toyota called New United Motor Manufacturing
2.1 million1
211 per million. Small cars kill
results in the June launch of '86 Chevrolet Nova, a near-clone of the Toyota Corolia. No-
3.0
cies that make them vulner-
3.6 million
Drivers have been switching
able in crashes. And many
189 people per million; the
va is Chevy's third small car, joining Cavalier and the now-antiquated Chevette.
In millions
from cars to sport-utility vehi-
have another problem: They
smallest, mini-cars, kill 217.
2.0
cles and other trucks in big
are designed for better ground
Light trucks - vans, pickups
numbers, partly to escape size
and sport-utility vehicles - are
GM 1990 launches Saturn small cars, which become a hit because dealers don't haggle on
0
clearance, SO they sit higher.
1980
1999
and power restrictions on cars
That makes them more prone
about 49% of new-vehicle sales.
price and treat customers royally. As with the original Mustang, there's a lesson: Small
USA TODAY forecast
from corporate average fuel
to deadly rollovers.
SUVs probably will overtake
cars can do reasonably well if their buyers are treated like luxury-car buyers.
Source: Autodata
By Quin Tian, USA TODAY
economy standards, and partly
Small SUVs, the size of Chev-
pickups as best-selling trucks
because bigger vehicles are
rolet Tracker, Honda CR-V and
this year, partly driven by an in-
1993
safer in most crashes.
Toyota RAV4, are four to six
crease in small SUVs.
Chrysler introduces Neon, with front wheels about 6 inches farther from rear wheels than on
The switch has been profit-
times more likely to kill their
Two examples: Honda is sell-
most other small cars, providing extraordinary room inside.
able for automakers, who earn
occupants in a rollover than
ing 50% more CR-Vs this year
more on trucks than on cars.
small cars are. Small SUVs also
than last; Kia has doubled
But it's becoming thorny, too.
are nearly five times as likely to
sales of its Sportage SUV.
1999 Ford introduces Focus, European-designed replacement for Escort. Focus costs
The most-popular trucks are
kill occupants in a rollover, as
And other automakers
$1,000 less to build, finally giving Ford what it hopes will be a consistently profit-
bigger, heavier models that use
are midsize SUVs, such as Che-
will push more such vehicles
able small car. DaimlerChrysler says its PT Cruiser small car (left) will be classed
more fuel, making it increas-
vy Blazer, Ford Explorer and
into showrooms soon. Ford
a truck to help meet truck CAFE standard. Cruiser is based on Neon, but re-
ingly difficult to meet CAFE
Jeep Grand Cherokee. Small
Motor and affiliate Mazda
movable back seats and flat-load floor allow the car to be a truck under gov-
pickups have a similar, though
will launch small SUVs in
ernment rules. United Auto Workers, GM officials discuss but can't agree on
standards.
The antidote is familiar:
less extreme, problem.
about a year, while General
plan for GM to quit losing money on small cars it builds at Lordstown, Ohio.
Force-feed small, fuel-efficient
Overall, crashes involving
Motors is accelerating devel-
trucks into the market to meet
small SUVs kill their occupants
opment of a similar small SUV.
the overall fuel economy aver-
twice the average rate of all ve-
hicles, according to the Insur-
By James R. Healey
Cari akers de ou
Fuel fines a cost of business
Co
'd
ew
c
ash
es
S
Some auto companies don't make any models fuel-efficient
around CAFE rules
enough to satisfy federal regulations. Those makers routinely
Some experts advocate tougher standards for small cars
pay fines to the U.S. government for missing the mark, and
chalk it up as the cost of doing business. The first fine for
falling short of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy stan-
Small cars have benefited
changing the government
probably getting too complicat-
Corporate average fuel econ-
because they mainly sell bigger
dards was paid by Jaguar in 1985. Since then, companies
from dramatic safety improve-
crash test.
ed," Shelton says.
omy - referred to as CAFE
vehicles, pay the fines and call
have paid a total $451 million in fines. Companies that paid
ments, as have other vehicles,
Instead of driving cars head-
Others have suggested ex-
(pronounced ka-FE) - is the
it a cost of doing business. U.S.
more than $1 million in fines through 1998:
and the USA's highway death
on into fixed barriers, he says,
ternal air bags in, say, the
mileage the federal govern-
automakers don't, even if it
CAFE fines
rate in both 1997 and '98 was a
how about slamming heavy
bumpers. Sensors would inflate
would be cheaper than selling
Company
ment requires each automaker
Mercedes-Benz
$197,105,570
historic low: 1.6 deaths per 100
barriers into cars, better
bags an instant before a crash
to attain when the fuel econo-
fuel-efficient vehicles at a loss
to meet the standards.
$114,268,519
million miles driven.
matching real crashes?
to help cushion the impact.
mies of all the vehicles it sells
BMW
$56,421,280
Because better brakes, tires,
Shelton sees promise. If the
"It's not SO crazy," says Brian
in a model year are averaged.
U.S. makers are too afraid of
Volvo
O'Neill, head of the Insurance
$40,069,650
safety belts, interiors and side-
moving barrier weighed more
The standard for cars is 27.5
being prosecuted for breaking
Jaguar
miles per gallon in combined
$16,678,615
impact protection are shared
than a small car, for instance,
Institute for Highway Safety, a
the federal law under which
Porsche
by all vehicles, crash safety still
but no more than a midsize or
private research organization
city and highway driving. The
CAFE standards are imposed.
Land Rover
$13,222,747
focuses on size. Improving just
large car, then "a small car
supported by auto insurers.
standard for light trucks -
They are afraid of lawsuits by
Fiat/Ferrari
$5,746,805
small-car safety involves trou-
would have to do more to im-
Technology would be similar
pickups, vans and sport-utility
shareholders irate at corporate
Sterling
$4,318,780
bling tradeoffs.
prove its crashworthiness than
to what's already used, he says.
vehicles - is 20.7 mpg.
decisions that would result in
Peugeot
$2,805,205
"We're looking at enhancing
larger cars would, so that bene-
Tradeoffs: More bags add
An automaker could achieve
law breaking and fine paying.
Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
small-car safety, but most of
fits small-car safety."
weight, hurting fuel economy,
car CAFE selling 1 million cars
Even when the standards
our regulations improve safety
Tradeoff: It could water
and add cost, driving off price-
averaging 30 mpg and another
aren't met, there are ways to
across the board," says Robert
down crashworthiness of vehi-
sensitive small-car buyers.
1 million averaging 25 mpg. If
avoid paying
cles heavier than the barrier.
Some suggest a law requiring
maker can juggle model-year
The shortened '98 model
Shelton, associate administra-
an automaker sold 1 million at
Previous credits. If an
automaker exceeds CAFE one
year helped GM two ways: It re-
tor in charge of safety stan-
NHTSA's current test is
the best safety features be re-
20 mpg, it would have to sell an-
designations to help meet
CAFE. General Motors, for in-
duced the number of less-
dards at the National Highway
equivalent to crashing the test
served for small cars.
other 1 million at a daunting 35
year, the excess can be applied
mpg to average 27.5.
the next three years to help bal-
stance, declared that the 1998
efficient '98 models sold, SO
Traffic Safety Administration.
vehicle head-on into an iden-
Tradeoff: Newest feature
model year would end January
their lower fuel-economy aver-
NHTSA, a unit of the federal
tical vehicle. Crashing a 4,000-
usually cost the most. Smal
There's a fine for missing the
ance worse averages.
pound car into a 4,000-pound
Future credits. An auto-
1998 for its Chevrolet Tahoe,
ages wouldn't weigh as heavily
Department of Transportation,
cars lack the profit margins ti
standard: $5.50 for each
0.1 mpg short of the CAFE
GMC Yukon and Chevy/GMC
in an overall calculation. And it
enforces safety and fuel-econo-
barrier is a tougher test than
absorb costly gadgets.
maker can forecast that sales
up to three years in the future
Suburban full-size sport utili-
pushed sales of some less-
my standards.
slamming a 3,000-pound barri-
And such exclusivity woul
standard, multiplied by the
ties, just four months after the
efficient, old-design SUVs into
"We don't want to improve
er into a 4,000-pound car.
enrage luxury-car buyers, w)
number of vehicles sold. Sell
will result in exceeding CAFE
'98 model year began. Starting
the '99 model year where
small-car safety at the expense
A barrier heavy enough to
expect the best and newest
1 million cars with an average
standards. That projected ex-
cess can be used as a credit
February 1998, those vehicles
they're averaged with more
of others," he says.
tax the weightiest vehicles
everything for the premir
of 27 mpg instead of 27.5, the
were designated '99 models,
fuel-efficient new pickups.
Clarence Ditlow, head of the
would be SO heavy, small cars
prices they pay.
fine would be $27.5 million.
now. If an automaker doesn't
though the vehicles were un-
consumer activist group Center
never could pass. An array of
Some foreign automakers,
hit its forecast, it pays a fine.
changed. That's legal.
By James R. Healey
for Auto Safety, proposes
different weight barriers "is
By James R. Healey
unlikely to meet the standard
Model years. An auto-
auia OII rank
in Cairo, Egypt. The ministers, discovering they are mutually
ing to conserve fuel needed to generate electricity. Schools
1960
furious over threats to their countries' income and influence,
in cold-weather states stretch winter breaks up to six weeks
Chrysler introduces Plymouth Val-
begin secret talks that lead to the formation of the Organiza-
to save fuel.
iant and Dodge Dart, conventional
tion of Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC.
Public is outraged to learn that U.S. oil companies contin-
small cars, to keep up with Falcon
ue exporting oil, despite U.S. shortages. Oil firms can get
and Corvair. Even GM's big-car
1960
more money selling overseas because OPEC is setting high
Buick division feels small-car fever
OPEC holds first meeting, settles on goal: keeping oil
oil prices for countries allowed to buy, and price controls are
and introduces '61 Special.
prices up.
in place in the USA. Some U.S. oil even goes to OPEC
members.
1964
1971
Ford introduces the Mustang as a
President Nixon imposes price controls on oil as anti-in-
1974
1964½ model. That first Mustang is
flation - locking maximum price of gasoline at peak-
Feds order year-round daylight savings time, hoping time
with
UAW
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA-UAW
STEPHEN P. YOKICH, President
RUBEN BURKS, Secretary-Treasurer
VICE PRESIDENTS
ELIZABETH BUNN
RON GETTELFINGER
BOB KING
JACK LASKOWSKI
RICHARD SHOEMAKER
IN REPLY REFER TO
1767 N STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC. 20036
TELEPHONE: (202) 828-8500
June 30, 1999
FAX (202) 293-3457
Dear Senator:
When the Senate considers the FY 2000 Transportation Appropriations bill, we
understand that amendments may be offered to eliminate or modify the current
moratorium on Increases in fuel economy standards for autos and trucks (commonly
known as CAFE, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards). The UAW strongly
opposes such amendments and urges you to vote against them.
The UAW supported the CAFE standards when they were originally enacted. We
believe these standards have helped to improve the fuel economy achieved by motor
vehicles (which has doubled since 1974). This Improvement in fuel economy has saved
money for consumers and reduced oil consumption by our nation.
However, for a number of reasons the UAW believes it would be unwise to increase the
fuel economy standards at this time. First, any increase in the CAFE standard for sport
utility vehicles (SUVs) and light trucks would have a disproportionately negative impact
on the Big Three automakers because their fleets contain a much higher percentage of
these vehicles than other manufacturers. Second, any increases in CAFE standards
for cars or trucks would also discriminate against full line producers like the Big Three
automakers because their fleets contain a higher percentage of full size automobiles
and larger SUVs and light trucks. The current fuel economy standards are based on a
flat miles per gallon number, rather than a percentage Increase formula, and are
therefore more difficult to achieve for full line producers. Taking these two factors
together, the net result is that further increases in CAFE could lead to the loss of
thousands of jobs at automotive plants across this country that are associated with the
production of SUVs, light trucks and full size automobiles.
The UAW believes that additional gains in fuel economy can and should be achieved
through the cooperative research and development programs currently being
undertaken by the U.S. government and the Big Three automakers in the "Partnership
for a New Generation of Vehicles". This approach can help to produce the
breakthrough technologies that will achieve significant advances In fuel economy,
without the adverse jobs Impact that could be created by further increases in CAFE
standards.
Accordingly, the UAW urges you to oppose any amendments that seek to eliminate or
modify the current freeze on increases in motor vehicle fuel economy standards.
Thank you for considering our views on this important issue.
Sincerely,
alan Penthes
Alan Reuther
Legislative Director
AR:car
opelu494
C4100
06 30-1999 13:30
2022933457
UAW WASHINGTON OFC
03/04
UAW
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA UAW
STEPHEN P. YOKICH, President
RUBEN BURKS, Secretary-Treasurer
VICE PRESIDENTS
ELIZABETH BUNN
RON GETTELFINGER
BOB KING
JACK LASKOWSKI
RICHARD SHOEMAKER
IN REPLY REFER TO
1757 N STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
TELEPHONE: (202) 828-8500
June 30, 1999
FAX (202) 203-3457
Dear Senator:
When the Senate considers the FY 2000 Transportation Appropriations bill, we
understand that amendments may be offered to eliminate or modify the current
moratorium on increases in fuel economy standards for autos and trucks (commonly
known as CAFE, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards). The UAW strongly
opposes such amendments and urges you to vote against them.
The UAW supported the CAFE standards when they were originally enacted. We
believe these standards have helped to improve the fuel economy achieved by motor
vehicles (which has doubled since 1974). This improvement in fuel economy has saved
money for consumers and reduced oil consumption by our nation.
However, for a number of reasons the UAW believes It would be unwise to increase the
fuel economy standards at this time. First, any increase in the CAFE standard for sport
utility vehicles (SUVs) and light trucks would have a disproportionately negative impact
on the Big Three automakers because their fleets contain a much higher percentage of
these vehicles than other manufacturers. Second, any Increases in CAFE standards
for cars or trucks would also discriminate against full line producers like the Big Three
automakers because their fleets contain a higher percentage of full size automobiles
and larger SUVs and light trucks. The current fuel economy standards are based on a
flat miles per gallon number, rather than a percentage increase formula, and are
therefore more difficult to achieve for full line producers. Taking these two factors
together, the net result is that further increases in CAFE could lead to the loss of
thousands of jobs at automotive plants across this country that are associated with the
production of SUVs, light trucks and full size automobiles.
The UAW believes that additional gains in fuel economy can and should be achieved
through the cooperative research and development programs currently being
undertaken by the U.S. government and the Big Three automakers in the "Partnership
for a New Generation of Vehicles". This approach can help to produce the
breakthrough technologies that will achieve significant advances in fuel economy,
without the adverse jobs impact that could be created by further increases in CAFE
standards.
06-30-1999 13:31
2022933457
UAW WASHINGTON OFC
P.04/04
Accordingly, the UAW urges you to oppose any amendments that seek to eliminate or
modify the current freeze on increases in motor vehicle fuel economy standards.
Thank you for considering our views on this important issue.
Sincerely,
alan Penthes
Alan Reuther
Legislative Director
AR:car
opeiu494
C4100
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 16, 1999
MEMORANDUM TO JOHN PODESTA
FROM: GEORGE FRAMPTON
ROGER BALLENTINI
SAB
LINDA LANCE
RE: CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY (CAFE) RIDER
Background on Current Law and Rider
The CAFE law applies to all manufacturers selling in the U.S., and sets standards for the
average fuel economy of a manufacturer's fleet. The statutory term of art for vehicles covered is
"automobiles," but the definition encompasses cars, pickup trucks, minivans and sport utility
vehicles (SUVs) potentially up to 10,000 pounds (DOT regulations limit its application to
vehicles up to 8500 pounds). During the time the standards have been in effect, fuel economy of
the car fleet has doubled with no loss in interior volume of performance, and improvements
continued even after gasoline prices began to fall. This has saved an estimated 2.5 million
barrels of oil per day, and has saved consumers at least $40 billion in gasoline costs.
The statute sets separate requirements for cars and "light trucks", which includes pickups,
SUVs and minivans. It established numerical standards for cars leveling off at 27.5 miles per
gallon in 1985 and after, although the Secretary of DOT has the authority to raise or lower that
standard based on consideration of a number of factors. For "light trucks" the statute does not
prescribe a numerical standard, but requires that DOT set the standard at least 18 months prior to
the beginning of each model year.
If manufacturers exceed the fleet average in a particular year they can carry forward or
carry back credits they expect to earn for doing better than the standard in another year.
However, if they exceed the standard and run out of credits they pay fines calculated on the
number of vehicles sold and the miles per gallon by which they exceed the standard.
During the Reagan years the car standard was lowered to 26 mpg, and the U.S.
manufacturers built up credits. The car standard returned to 27.5 in the Bush years, and has
remained flat ever since. The truck standard (this category is now 50% of new vehicle sales) was
raised during the Bush Administration from 20.0 mpg to 20.5. In the first three years of the
Clinton Administration the standards were raised from 20.5 to 20.7. The rider has precluded
further consideration of changing these standards.
This year's rider (which has been added to the House but not the Senate version of the
DOT Appropriations bill) is identical to previous riders. It precludes expenditure of DOT funds
to "prepare, propose, or promulgate any regulations" setting CAFE standards for vehicles that
are different from existing standards.
Options
1.
Do Not Veto; Same Response as Previous Years
As in previous years, particularly if rider is on a stand-alone Transportation
appropriations bill, we would speak out against the rider but reluctantly sign bill.
Pros: Avoid possible over-ride; do not anger industry and labor; avoid tough vote for
vulnerable Members of Congress.
Cons: Greatly anger environmental community; extend period during which we take no
action in face of decreasing efficiency of vehicle fleet; face domestic and international
criticism for failing to take action in one of two largest carbon-emitting sectors.
2.
Fight Rider; If Successful, Use Leverage of Possible Regs to Reach Agreement with
Industry.
Regardless of where the rider appears, we would make a strong stand against the rider
and in favor of closing the "light truck loophole". We would point out that SUVs are
passenger cars and that Americans expect them to perform as efficiently as passenger
cars. Our message would have to be strong and convincing, delivered by Principals and
echoed by NGO's, to give cover and stomach to Members. If we were successful in
eliminating the rider, we would indicate an intention to engage the rulemaking process on
CAFE, but also that we are interested in exploring a "third way" solution that would
involve either voluntary or other administrative action to achieve improved efficiency.
Ideally, we would have some closure with the industry and the enviros in advance.
Pros: We would be making a strong environmental commitment and backing up our
long-standing positions, arguing that Americans want efficient vehicles and that over the
past [5] years, the fuel efficiency of the fleet has gone down, despite gains in technology
and a growing public concern with clean air and climate change. We would also deliver a
strong, overall message against anti-environmental riders and demonstrate strong will in
support of this position. In addition, if we were successful in delivering a third-way
result (not just a process), we would head off any Republican candidate argument in favor
of cleaner, more efficient vehicles, but against old-style Democratic, top-down,
Washington-mandate solution that pits the environment against business and jobs.
Cons: Will be hard to get enviros and industry on same page. We still would put some
Members in position for a tough vote.
3.
Fight Rider; Begin Rulemaking Process Whether or Not We Reach an Agreement.
Again, we would make a strong argument in favor of the policy and back that up if we
won with the initiation of the rulemaking process on some reasonable timetable. There
would be no expectation of finalizing any rule during this Administration.
Pros: Enormous support from environmental community and some key international
recognition of strong domestic actions on carbon. Perhaps we would reap some pundit
credit for courage and principle. Obviously, we could remain open to a deal if presented.
While industry would be very upset, it is difficult for them to argue on the merits of
closing the loophole, since public supports efficiency. There may also be a range of
options on how much we would propose raising the standard that could mitigate
opposition/difficulty on Hill.
Cons: Strong opposition from industry and perhaps labor. Industry will put increased
CAFE standard in terms of jobs. Tough vote for certain Members. While Republican
candidates could oppose increasing efficiency altogether (a debate we could win), they
could support increased efficiency, but oppose bureaucratic, heavy-handed approach.
4.
Don't Go To War on Rider Yet; Start Immediate Dialog with Industry.
We would keep our "strongly oppose" language on the bill in the immediate term, but
engage industry at high level (COS) with message that we are very concerned about this
issue, and all out opposition to rider and attack on industry's failure on efficiency
improvements are real possibilities for us. We would immediately explore the possibility
of a voluntary agreement or alternative to CAFE. If we fail, we could either go to option
1 or option 3. We would have some leverage. Our Tier II rules are pending (which
impact on producing efficient vehicles), industry would get good green public relations
hit with a deal and they would avoid a high profile environmental fight, and they might
fear our striking a deal with foreign manufacturers.
Pros: Could avoid tough vote for Members; third way solution; great deliverable.
Cons: There may be no viable option other than CAFE and little hope for a voluntary
agreement.
Cc:
Ron Klain
Larry Stein
David Beier
Elgie Holstein
Martha Foley
Morley Winograd
Lisa Kountoupes
Tier II
Mindy E. Myers
04/30/99 04:07:22 PM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Roger S. Ballentine/WHO/EOP@EOP, Lisa M. Kountoupes/WHO/EOP@EOP
CC:
Subject: Embargoed Radio Address Paper
Forwarded by Mindy E. Myers/WHO/EOP on 04/30/99 04:07 PM
Jason H. Schechter
04/30/99 04:04:39 PM
Record Type:
Record
To:
See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
CC:
Subject: Embargoed Radio Address Paper
EMBARGOED UNTIL 10:06AM EST, SATURDAY, MAY 1, 1999
PRESIDENT CLINTON AND VICE PRESIDENT GORE:
CLEANER AIR FOR THE NEW CENTURY
May 1, 1999
Today, in his weekly radio address, President Clinton proposes major new steps to improve air quality and protect
public health by dramatically reducing pollution from cars, sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and light-duty trucks. The
proposed rules would strengthen tailpipe standards for cars, SUVs and other vehicles, and reduce sulfur in gasoline,
beginning in 2004. Under this plan, manufacturers would produce vehicles that are 77 to 95 percent cleaner than
those rolling off the assembly lines today, while preserving consumers' ability to drive the vehicles of their choice.
Cleaner Skies and Healthier Air. Americans have made tremendous progress in improving air quality. Since the
Clean Air Act was enacted in 1970, air pollution has been cut more than 30 percent even as our population and
economy have continued to grow. Since 1993, the number of over 43 million Americans' communities met federal
air quality standards. In 1997, the Administration adopted the toughest new health standards in a generation for
smog and soot, an action that will protect the health of 125 million Americas, including 35 million children. This
past Earth Day, Vice President Gore announced a new measure to restore pristine skies over our national parks and
wilderness areas.
Doing Better in the Decades Ahead. In a study released last July, EPA reported that additional emission
reductions will be necessary to maintain the nation's progress in achieving cleaner air, and could be achieved
cost-effectively by coupling tighter tailpipe standards with cleaner fuels. The proposed rules, to be phased in
between 2004 and 2009, would:
For the first time ever, apply a uniform tailpipe standard to passenger cars, SUVs and other
light-duty
trucks. The new standard would result in cars that are 77% cleaner - and SUVs
and other light-duty
trucks 95% cleaner - than today's models.
Reduce average sulfur levels in gasoline from more than 300 to 30 parts per million. These
reductions
are
needed because sulfur fouls catalytic converters, the devices that remove
pollutants from auto exhaust.
The number of miles Americans drive each year rose from 1 trillion in 1970 to 2.5 trillion in 1997 and is expected
to continue to rise at a rate of 2-3% a year. Sales of higher-polluting SUVs, minivans and other light-duty trucks,
now 50 percent of the market, are expected to keep growing. The proposed measures, when fully implemented,
would reduce vehicle emissions at a level equivalent to removing 166 million cars from the road. EPA calculates
that the proposals would prevent as many as 2,400 deaths, 3,900 cases of chronic bronchitis, and tens of thousands
respiratory problems a year.
Flexible and Cost-Effective. The proposed rules reflect extensive consultation by EPA with the auto and fuel
industries, states and local officials, environmental groups, and public health communities. They provide for flexible
implementation for the auto and oil industry to meet the new standards cost-effectively. For instance: 1) by
allowing auto companies to average across the fleet as they phase-in the new requirements and; 2) allowing for a
market based trading and banking system for both industries to reward those who lead the way in reducing
pollution. The projected costs of meeting the standard - about $100 for cars, $200 for light-duty trucks, and
between one and two cents per gallon of gas - would be outweighed by the projected public health benefits. EPA is
inviting public input on the proposed rules, and will carefully consider all comments before the rules are finalized.
The proposed rules can be found on the Internet at www.epa.gov/oms/tr2home.htm.
###
EMBARGOED UNTIL 10:06AM EST, SATURDAY, MAY 1, 1999
CLEAN AIR: CLEANER CARS AND CLEANER GASOLINE
Today, President Clinton is announcing the next step in providing Americans with cleaner air, cleaner cars,
and cleaner gasoline. The proposed new standards are specifically designed to reduce harmful air pollution,
like smog-causing nitrogen oxides, with flexible and cost-effective ways that give Americans the cleaner air
and the consumer choices they want.
Cleaner Cars. EPA is proposing to set tougher tailpipe emissions standards beginning in 2004 -- the first
time both cars and light-duty trucks are subject to the same national pollution control system. The proposed
new standard is .07 grams per mile (gpm) for nitrogen oxides, a 77 percent reduction for cars and an 95
percent reduction for trucks and SUVs. Vehicles under 6000 pounds would be phased in between 2004 to
2007, and vehicles weighing between 6000 and 8500 would be phased in through 2009. The current national
standards range from .6 gpm for cars to 1.53 gpm for the heaviest SUVs and vans. Estimated cost would be
an average of $100 for cars and $200 for SUVs per vehicle.
Cleaner Gasoline. EPA is proposing for the first time that tailpipe emissions and sulfur in gasoline are
addressed together as a single system to achieve cleaner air efficiently and cost effectively. Sulfur in gasoline
impedes the effectiveness of catalytic converters -- the devices that reduce pollution from tail pipes. The
proposal would require the nation's refiners to meet an average sulfur level of 30 parts per million (ppm) by
2004, down from the current average of more than 300 ppm. Small refiners -- those with 1,500 employees
or less -- would have an additional 4 years to comply, with the opportunity of an extension for those that can
demonstrate a severe economic hardship. EPA estimates the cost would be between one and two cents per
gallon, or about $12 to $24 dollars per year per car.
Maximum Flexibility. To ensure that the car and oil industries meet the new standards cost-effectively, the
proposal includes several flexible mechanisms:
Averaging: Automakers and refiners can meet the proposed standards by averaging to allow
maximum cost-effectiveness. For example, automakers could manufacture a range of vehicles that emit 0.00
grams per mile (gpm) to 0.2 gpm of nitrogen oxides as long as the average amount of the entire fleet remains
at 0.07 gpm. The nation's refiners and importers of gasoline would have the flexibility to manufacture
gasoline within a range of sulfur levels as long as the annual average is 30 parts per million (ppm). The
maximum amount of sulfur in gasoline, for purposes of averaging, could not exceed 80 ppm after 2005.
Phase-In: Beginning in 2004, 25 percent of lighter vehicles would be required to meet the new 0.07
gpm standard each year until the phase-in is completed in 2007. Larger vehicles, from 6000 to 8500 pounds,
would also be phased in to meet the new standard beginning in 2004 until completed in 2009. Small
refiners would have until 2008 to comply with the proposed sulfur standards. Small refiners that
demonstrate a severe economic hardship could apply for an additional extension of up to two years.
Credit for Early Action: As early as 2001, auto manufacturers could obtain credits for later use for
vehicles produced at or below the 0.07 gpm standard. Refiners and importers of gasoline also would be
allowed to generate, bank, and trade sulfur credits that they could either use in a later year or sell to another
refiner. This proposal allows companies to gain credits for early pollution reductions. The result of these
market mechanisms is reduced costs to industry and cleaner air faster for the American people.
###
Message Sent To:
Mindy E. Myers
04/30/99 04:53:17 PM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Roger S. Ballentine/WHO/EOP@EOP, Lisa M. Kountoupes/WHO/EOP@EOP
CC:
Subject: EMBARGOED transcript 4/30/99 Press briefing on environment
Forwarded by Mindy E. Myers/WHO/EOP on 04/30/99 04:53 PM
OLCOTT_E@A1
04/30/99 04:46:00 PM
Record Type:
Record
To:
See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
CC:
Subject: EMBARGOED transcript 4/30/99 Press briefing on environment
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
Embargoed For Release
Until 10:06 A.M. EDT
Saturday, May 1, 1999
PRESS BRIEFING BY
GEORGE FRAMPTON, ACTING CHAIR OF THE COUNCIL
ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, and
CAROL BROWNER, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The Briefing Room
3:12 P.M. EDT
MR. TOIV: Good afternoon. This briefing, as you all know, is
embargoed. It is on the record for broadcast. However, it is embargoed until
10:06 a.m. on Saturday. The subject of the briefing is the President's radio
address tomorrow. And here to brief are George Frampton, who is the Acting
Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality; Carol Browner, who is the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; and also here and
available to answer questions is Josh Gotbaum, who is the Executive Associate
Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
MR. FRAMPTON: Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. I'm George
Frampton, Acting Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality. Tomorrow, in
his radio address, the President will announce a major step forward in cleaning
up the air we breathe and in giving consumers cleaner transportation.
He'll announce a new proposed rule under the Clean Air Act that will
require significant reductions in tailpipe emissions for cars, light trucks and
SUVs; and at the same time, a proposed rule to require a very significant, 90
percent reduction in the sulfur in gasoline, to clean up automobile fuels.
I think that there are two things that are quite extraordinary about
this proposed rule. First, that it takes major, major steps forward to clean up
the air and that it does so across the board for all kinds of light vehicles.
The rule is phased in between 2004, which is the first year that we could do
this under the Clean Air Act for tailpipe emission standards, to 2009. By 2009,
all kinds of vehicles, including SUVs and light trucks, will have to meet the
same tail pipe emission standards.
It's a major step forward, cleaning up the air. It's also extraordinary
in terms of the process that was used here. EPA Administrator Browner and her
staff and the Administration have engaged in what I think is a really unusual
and productive series of stakeholder discussions over the past six or eight
months, and particularly the last few months, with the automobile industry, the
oil industry, refiners, public health officials and experts with state and local
government, with the environmental community
to reach a balance, to hit the sweet spot. It will clean up the
air, but will also take care in account of particular problems
that industry has in meeting this rule, which is a strong rule.
So that has been a very unusual and, I think, productive
process. And I think that the proposed rule will really strike a
good balance, the right balance, and will clean up the air. This
process will continue. This is a proposed rule and we will
continue in the same spirit and in the same vein, in the same
process, to try to talk to all interested parties after the rule
is published over the coming months to make sure that if there
are changes, if there are small changes, or things that we
haven't quite got the right balance or hit the sweet spot, that
the final rule will do that. I think it's been a very unusual
and very successful process, to date. We hope to continue it.
Thank you.
Carol.
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: Thank you, George. And let me begin
by thanking both George, Josh and the people who work with them.
It has, indeed, been an unusual process, a tremendous amount of
time and energy spent with the automotive industry, with the
petroleum industry. I, personally, met with CEOs, I met with
environmental vice presidents and we engaged in what I think will
be a dialogue that will serve the American people well.
Let me welcome you here to the White House, those of you who
normally cover us at the Environmental Protection Agency; and let
me thank all of you for coming here today.
Over the past six years, the President and the Vice
President have made cleaner air for the people of this country
one of their key environmental priorities. Today's proposal for
the next generation of cleaner cars is in keeping with that
tradition. These new, cost-effective standards would provide
every single person in this country cleaner air. It will protect
their health and their environment.
There are three important parts to this proposal. First,
for the first time ever we are proposing to hold sport utility
vehicles and light duty trucks to the same national pollution
standards that passenger cars will meet.
Second, also for the first time ever, to achieve
cost-effective reductions we are treating tailpipe emissions and
gasoline as a single system -- what comes out of the tailpipe is
a function, in part, of the gasoline. Not only will
manufacturers build cleaner cars, but refiners will be producing
cleaner fuels that contain less sulfur. Sulfur is a pollutant
that can inhibit the effects of pollution reduction technology.
It can literally poison the catalytic convertor.
Third, working with the automotive and petroleum sectors, we
have built in flexibility that will allow them to do this in the
most cost efficient manner, that will give them both the
opportunity to take advantage of market mechanisms in the time
frames that will allow us to achieve the greatest amount of
pollution reductions at the lowest cost.
Last year, EPA issued a report in which we concluded that
given the increase in miles driven or miles traveled, and the
changes in the make up of the fleet mix, including an increase in
the number of sport utility vehicles and light trucks, tighter
standards were needed to continue this country's incredible
progress in providing cleaner air.
After months of collaboration with interested parties, we
have decided and we are proposing today that a cost efficient
tailpipe standard of .07 grams per mile of nitrogen oxides is
attainable and that it will give us the necessary pollution
reductions to provide the American people with clean, healthy
air. These reductions represent a 77 to 86 percent decrease for
cars in the amount of pollution, and a 92 to 95 percent decrease
in pollution from SUVs and light duty trucks.
Let me explain quickly how this program will work. For cars
and vehicles under 6,000 pounds -- that is, your passenger cars
and many of today's minivans -- the new requirements would be
phased in over a four-year period in 25 percent increments,
beginning with the year 2004, which is the first year we are
allowed to make these requirements under the Clean Air Act of
1990. By the year 2007, all cars and light duty trucks -- ones
and twos, minivans -- would be required to meet the new
proposals.
In terms of the heavier trucks, the larger sport utility
vehicles, they would begin the program with an initial reduction
in 2004, bringing them down almost 60 percent and then they would
phase into the car program from the years 2004 to 20009.
To make the fuels that our vehicles burn cleaner we will
also phase in a 90 percent reduction of sulfur and gasoline
beginning in the year 20004. Sulfur not only pollutes our air
but it also, as I said earlier, poisons the performance of
catalytic converters that are installed to actually help clean
our air, or to really scrub the emissions. By addressing both
sulfur and gasoline in the tailpipe standards at the same time by
bringing these programs on line together, we believe that we will
be able to further reduce the cost and provide cleaner air for
the American people more quickly.
The nation's refiners will have to meet a sulfur standard of
30 parts per million by the year 2004. For the less than two
dozen small refineries, we do provide some additional
flexibilities, including an additional two to four years.
To ensure that both industries can meet these goals, the
proposal contains a number of important flexibilities including
an averaging scheme, in the case of the vehicles the entire fleet
will have to meet an average of .07. No vehicle can be in excess
of .2. We also have structured the proposal to allow recognition
and credit for those in either industry who choose to provide
these pollution reductions earlier than we are able to require
under the law.
So, for instance, beginning in the year 2001, automobile
manufactures could obtain credits for later use for vehicles
produced at or below the .07 standard. Refiners and oil
importers would also be able to bank and trade credits that could
be used in a later.year to sell to another refiner.
The results of this proposal would be to cut emissions from
cars and trucks by almost 80 percent of what they are today. The
effect of this proposal is the same as if 166 -- 166 million cars
were literally pulled off the road and parked. We estimate that
this will keep 300 million tons of pollutants out of our air and
every year work to help prevent the thousands of premature deaths
and the onset of respiratory illness, aggravated asthma attacks
associated with air pollution.
It is important to understand that today's proposal does not
in any way limit a consumer's choice in vehicles. In almost all
cases the manufacturing and the refinery sectors will be able to
meet these standards by building upon and perfecting existing
technologies, emerging technologies. What it does allow the
consumer is the car of their choice but a cleaner car. What's
the cost to consumers? Minimal. We estimate that the price of
gas will rise one to two cents per year. That means for the
average family of four an extra $12 to $24 dollars a year for
cleaner air. The new catalytic converter technologies are
estimated to be approximately $100 to $200 per vehicle. With
this new standard we will maintain the nation's progress in
meeting our clean air goals. And as I said, we will allow every
American to breathe cleaner air.
We now enter a period of public comment and outreach. We
want to hear from the American people about these proposals. We
will be working with industry, with public health officials,
state and local government leaders, consumers. We will be
conducting public hearings across the country. This
administration is committed to finalizing this proposal by the
end of the year so we can begin the job of cleaner air for the
American people, building on this President's, the Vice
President's commitment and their work of the last six years.
We are now more than happy to answer any questions you may
have.
Q From what I understand, the largest sport utility
vehicles, some of them like the Chevy Suburbans and the new Ford
-- whatever it's called, Excursion -- would be actually too heavy
to apply for any of these regulations.
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: This is actually an interesting
question. We capture everything up to 8,500 pounds. When we
began this work I don't think things existed over 8,500 pounds.
They now exist. We are keenly aware of that. So we have
modified this proposal to take comment on how to include those
slightly larger SUVs, to bring them into the same program that
will address all the other SUVs and the passenger cars. So we
are taking comment on that and we do intend to make a decision on
that.
But, literally, they didn't exist when we began this
process.
Q Administrator Browner, there's been some concern among
the auto industry folks about whether they'll be able to continue
to make diesel engines, because they arguably can be more
efficient. Will that be possible under this proposal? And are
there components of the proposal to allow that to happen, and how
do they work?
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: I want to be clear, there is no
diesel loophole. This proposal does allow for some of the
cleaner, more fuel efficient technologies that are now emerging,
for example, in Europe. It would allow for cleaner diesels. For
example, some of the work that's going on, as I said, in some of
European countries.
We do intend to shortly put forward a proposal for cleaner
diesel. The fuels that we covered in today's announcement are
the traditional gasoline, the sulfur reductions; but we will also
be making a proposal on cleaner diesel fuels.
We recognize that there can be benefits from clean diesel
engines with clean diesel fuels, that it can give you a level of
fuel efficiency that can be extremely important both for
environmental reasons and for the consumer. And so we worked
very hard to structure a proposal that would allow for those
cleaner technologies and, yet, guarantee the kind of public
health benefits that were so important to us.
Q
Just to follow up, but you're not including diesels
under the same standards as gasoline cars and trucks, are you?
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: Oh, no, no, no. Whether you use
diesel fuels or traditional gasoline, your vehicle is covered
under this program. We are also, in this proposal, picking up
traditional gasoline in terms of reducing sulfur and we will
shortly make a proposal on diesel fuels.
Q The auto makers had asked for a third party review, if
possible. Is that going to happen and is there a date certain on
that?
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: We're taking comment on how to
fashion some sort of a technology review as the program comes on
line. That is not something that we've made any final decision
about. The automobile industry did bring that to our attention
and we are asking the public for comment on how we might
structure such a technology review.
Q
Just to follow up, is there a deadline on that
commentary period?
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: Yes, the comment period is 60 days
and it will begin, I think, effective Monday.
Q
Comment period of 60 days? You hope to finish the rule
by the end of the year?
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: We will finish the rule by the end
of the year. I'll tell you why --
Q Then what happens for the next four years?
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: Under the law, under the Clean Air
Act amendments of 1990, EPA was allowed to set the next round of
tailpipe emission reductions for model year 2004 -- that was the
earliest we could do it. Now, this administration has achieved a
voluntary agreement with the automotive industry that is already
bringing on line some cleaner cars, reducing the NOX emissions.
Today's proposal would go much, much further.
But the first year we could do it in was model year 2004.
We are required under the law to give the automotive industry a
certain period of time to prepare for that. That has the effect
of requiring us to be done by the end of this year. If we don't
finish by the end of the year, we will finish by the end of the
year or we would lose a full model year and we don't think the
American public should have to wait any longer for cleaner air
and for cleaner cars.
Q Can I got back to your cost estimate? You said one to
two cents --
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: Per gallon.
Q -- per gallon. Now, is that per year? Is that --
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: Per gallon.
Q Okay. You said one to two cents a gallon, per year.
Does that mean two to four cents in a second year?
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: No. It's one to two cents forever,
in essence. I think the additional way to think about it that I
tried to offer you was for the average family of four, that would
be $12 to $24 a year, not an awful lot to pay for cleaner air.
Q And can you repeat the percentage reductions, again, in
pollutants for cars and SUVs and light trucks?
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: For the passenger cars and what we
refer to as light duty trucks -- which are, essentially,
minivans, something weighing 6,000 pounds or less -- the percent
reduction is 77 to 86 percent of NOX, and some other pollutants
are included in that. For the larger, the 6,000 to 8,500 pound
vehicles, it's a 92 to 95 percent reduction.
But, again, let me -- we did something very, very important
here that allows us to get cleaner air even quicker than I think
was originally envisioned. Remember, we can't make any
requirements to 2004. So what we have done is said in 2004
everything is going to take an initial drop and then we will
phase into the .07 averaging program. So, for example, right now
the largest SUVs are, their emissions are running at 1.53 parts
per million, we would drop that down immediately to .6 and then
further on into the .07 averaging scheme. But you get almost a
60 percent reduction beginning in 2004 from the largest vehicles.
Q
Would the changes in the catalytic --
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: This is something California did not
do, by the way.
Q That inclusion of the larger SUVs in the initial whack,
was that in your original proposal as it went to OMB, or was that
an addition?
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: This was a collaborative process, we
all worked together. I don't think there is a situation that --
I don' t think it's fair to say things were additions or
deletions. It was an incredibly collaborative process and we all
stand here today making this announcement and this proposal to
the American people.
Q Is that a "yes"?
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: That's an answer. (Laughter.)
Q Would the changes to the catalytic convertors -- are
they going to have any foreseeable impact on performance for
these vehicles?
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: We don't anticipate -- in fact, if
you take the time to actually look at our proposal, you will see
that we have actually put one of these cleaner catalytic
converters on an SUV that we purchased off the lot and we're
achieving the reductions that are envisioned. Obviously, we're
not able to make the kind of engine adjustments that the
manufacture can make. We can simply apply the new -- apply the
new catalytic convertor, put the fuels in and see what kind of
reductions we can get. And we are able to get them right now.
Q But in that experiment, did it have any effect on the
performance of the vehicle?
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: No, it did not. No. And, in fact,
another point that I should just make to you is when -- this
requirement is at 120,000 miles, so you have to be able to meet
the lower emission requirement out to 120,000 miles, recognizing
that that is generally the life of a car. It was important not
to simply look at what's a new car, or a two-year-old or a
three-year-old car, but to actually go over the life of the
vehicle.
Q Is there any regionalization in this plan, in the sense
that the one to two cents that you mentioned -- does it raise if
you're from, say, New York City, versus if you're from Wyoming,
for instance?
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: Well, there are lots of things that
can affect prices. We looked at it from a national perspective,
our economists looked at it from a national perspective.
You know, let me just take an opportunity, or a moment, here
to say something. Obviously, there are going to be people out
there saying different things about prices. You know, there is a
long history in the United States of industry claiming that
pollution reductions are going to be very costly. Time and time
again, that has proven to be wrong.
For example, when EPA required the petroleum industry to
take lead out of gasoline, they projected very high costs. The
reality was very different, the benefits significant. Similarly,
acid rain -- it was projected to be very high.
I know some in industry may suggest those sorts of costs.
They have traditionally been wrong. We have looked at this. We
have worked with people in industry. We believe this is
incredibly cost-effective, one to two cents a gallon for cleaner
air.
There are no regional distinctions; it is a national program
that we are proposing. And I will explain why. Some had
suggested to us that we regionalize it, and we'd have gasoline
with one amount of sulfur in one part of the country, and another
amount of -- you know, higher sulfur. Remember, we're
recommending a 30 parts per million. On average, in the United
States today, it is 330 -- in some areas it is as high as 500.
So we are recommending, our proposal is for a 30 parts per
million average, a cap of 80 parts per million -- a very
significant reduction.
The reasons that we did not make a proposal on a regional
basis are several, but the most important reason is, as
Americans, we love to drive across our country. We love to drive
from state to state. Sulfur poisons a catalytic converter; it
really does damage to its ability to scrub out the pollution.
And so if a person with a nice, clean catalytic converter
who's using nice, clean gas were to drive to an area where the
gasoline was not as clean, they would do damage to their car's
ability to continue to function as a cleaner car.
So recognizing that, as Americans, we love to go on our
family vacation, drive across the country, we are proposing a
national program for the country.
Q
What do you figure this will do for smog -- in Los
Angeles, for instance? Is it going to cut it by a third, a half?
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: No, remember California has its own
air pollution programs. Under the federal law, they were given
their own authorities.
This does help California -- although California has taken
another set of steps -- it helps California for two reasons.
One, because lots of cars come into California, so the tougher
standards will help California. California has their own car
standards.
The second reason it helps California, California has
already gone to cleaner fuels, but again, people coming into
California with the less clean fuels, and people in California
leaving the state filling up with high sulfur content fuel are
losing the benefits of those cleaner catalytic converters. So
there is a benefit to California, but they do have their own
authority under the Clean Air Act.
The real effect here -- it is cleaner air for every person
in the country, including the people of California, they do get a
benefit for this -- the larger effects will be felt outside of
California in the large metropolitan areas. California has their
own car standards. They were given their own authorities. And
they made a proposal earlier this year to go to cleaner catalytic
converters, they chose a different way of getting there than we
are proposing.
Our proposal does have benefits to California and we get
greater reductions earlier than California because of this
initial reduction we take in 2004, in terms of the large SUVs. In
California the larger SUVs would stay outside of their program
until, I think, 2008, 2009. We felt that getting a first round
of reductions, particularly from SUVs, was extremely important in
terms of air quality.
Let me go to someone back there and then these two.
Q Two questions. First, are you going to do anything
about fuel economy? That's not directly your agency, but you are
responsible on global warming issues and the carbon dioxide from
some of these vehicles getting eight miles a gallon has been a
question posed. Second of all, when you talk about the 75
percent, isn't that including some of the so-called voluntary
reductions that are already happening next year for the cars,
anyway? Wouldn't their be a wider spread between the cars versus
the SUV reductions if you take out what's already --
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: No, the bigger reduction will still
be in the SUVs. I mean, the baseline that you look at is what
would -- you're talking about the national lower emission, the
NLEP program -- for cars and light duty truck ones, the first
category of trucks were picked up in that, it's a .6 cap with a
.3 average. For the threes and fours, they stayed into the
program that allows them to sit at 1.53. So it's a fairly
significant reduction when you go to the .6 in 2004. What was
the second part of your question? I apologize -- oh, fuel
efficiency.
One of the very important things about how we structured our
proposal was to recognize that there are these new emerging clean
diesels, for example, that will bring with them fuel efficiency
benefits. So while it is an averaging program where your fleet
average is a .07, there is a cap of .2. No vehicle can be
greater than .2. And we believe -- and, in fact, I met with
diesel engine manufactures who are looking at these clean diesel
technologies -- that that will allow for the more fuel efficient
clean technologies to become available.
Q The auto makers are now saying that they need or want
five parts per million in 2008, so the big sport utilities can
meet this. How do you feel about that and is that something
you're accepting comments on?
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: Yes, we are taking comment on that.
What we tried to do -- and EPA has never done this before -- no
administration has ever done this -- which is to look at both the
fuels and the tailpipe. Historically, what has happened is
something happens on fuels and then something happens on
tailpipes and then something happens on fuels and it's been back
and forth. And in most instances -- finally Congress had to set
the tailpipe standards, EPA was unable to do it, for any number
of reasons. So for the first time ever this Administration said
let's look at it as a system, let's look at fuels, let's look at
the tailpipe.
The car manufacturers did raise the issue of even lower
sulfur. We will take comment on that. We did structure this
proposal to look to both industries to do their part, if you
will, perhaps a balancing between the two industries. Now,
obviously, in the early years of a program the gasoline part of
the reduction is higher in terms of the number of tons of
pollution that come out of the air because you have, you know,
cars, fleets have to turn over.
But as you get to full implementation cars and gasoline,
it's roughly equivalent in terms of the number of pounds of
pollution reduction. It's a 50-50 split that we achieved between
the two industries. And the costs are roughly equal between the
two industries. And that was part of what we were looking to do,
to really put together a proposal that would ask both sectors to
do their part in a cost-effective and an efficient manner.
Q
But wouldn't the cost of gas possibly go much higher if
you had to go down to five parts per million?
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: We looked at -- the cost analyses
that we did were focused on the 30 parts per million and the time
frame that we had proposed. We did not look at that issue.
Q
Ms. Browner, could you answer a question on another
subject? There was a report this week that about eight different
environmental groups had withdrawn from a toxics advisory
committee because they were disappointed at the speed at which
the EPA was issuing new standards for toxic substances.
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: It's actually a little bit
different. It's on pesticide chemical registrations, yes.
Can you explain what your reaction is to that?
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: It's a new law. The President
signed this law -- we argued in Congress for two years to get a
new food safety law passed to allow EPA to set standards on all
foods and not simply processed foods, to set standards to protect
children's health. It is a mammoth undertaking for us, and we
are on schedule.
We did create a public advisory committee, made up of
farmers, manufacturers, the United States Department of
Agriculture, environmentalists. You know, in a perfect world,
would everything go more quickly? Absolutely. We are on
schedule to meet all of our statutory deadlines to take the steps
to ensure safe, abundant food for the people of this country, to
protect the health of our children.
We are disappointed that the environmentalists couldn't hang
in there for the next several months while we make those sorts of
decisions. That is the schedule we articulated from the
beginning, and -- you know, it's very disappointing that so many
people have put a lot of time and energy into this process to
find the best ways to provide the protections and, yet, they
couldn't work with us for two more months.
Q
What are your cost estimates for compliance for the
auto and oil industries, respectively? And, secondly, could you
repeat how long the refineries will have to comply?
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: The costs are approximately $3.4 to
$4.4 billion. The benefits, in terms of the public health
benefits -- everything from reduction in respiratory illness,
asthma, crop loss, death, premature deaths that would be avoided
-- approximately $16.6 billion. The benefits to the public's
health far outweigh the costs.
What was the second part of your question?
Q You mentioned, I think, a time frame --
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: Oh, yes, I'm sorry. For petroleum,
the phase in begins in 2004, through 2006. It ends with a 30
part per million average, with a cap of 80. Just so you know,
today gasoline is anywhere from 330 to 500 parts per million
sulfur. It's a very significant reduction.
There are approximately two dozen small refineries under the
SBA definitions. They are given additional time, given their
unique situations -- a minimum of two years and, if necessary,
for hardship reasons, they can have up to an additional four
years.
Q
So larger refiners would have to comply 2004?
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: Beginning in 2004, they can phase
in, to 2006. And one of the flexibilities we offered for both
industry sectors are credits for earlier reductions, so you can
use -- if you're willing to -- and some, I mean, this has been
reported through many of you, that some in the petroleum industry
have already suggested that they're prepared to move towards
cleaner fuels to lower sulfur, specifically.
Q -- that's for both industries?
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: Yes, and they're roughly -- they
roughly split out. Again, things vary between the two industries
in the short-term, because of when investments get made. But
when you look out over the life of the program, it evens out.
MR. TOIV: This will be the last question.
Q Because this is being phased in, and because it applies
to new cars, and obviously it would take a long time before most
of the nation's vehicles fall under these regulations, I mean, it
seems like --
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: You'd be surprised how quickly it
starts to affect the air we breathe. For example, fuels, it's an
immediate effect, right? The first day that you have cleaner
fuels, there's a measurable effect. In 2007, you're already
achieving 800,000 tons of reduction. By 2010, you're up to 1.2
million tons of reductions. So it happens quickly.
You're right, there is a fleet turnover. And that is part
of why -- when we looked at fleet turnover, when we looked at
life cycle -- that is part of why we took this initial
significant reduction, are proposing this initial significant
reduction in 2004 -- to bring in the SUVs, to drop them that 60
percent. I mean, there's some effect on cars, but the really big
chunk of it is on the SUVs, as opposed to California, who waits
until the end of their program. And that was as we looked at
these issues of fleet turnover and life of vehicles, we thought
that was extremely important, to get the cleaner air more
quickly.
MR. TOIV: Last question.
Q
Administrator Browner, the Administration will be
participating in the Sustainable Development Conference next week
in Detroit.
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: Starting Sunday, yes.
Q
Can you articulate exactly what specific outcome the
Administration would like to see, what goals you would like
reach?
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: Well, there is a great thing
happening in this country. Community by community, people are
coming together and looking at how they can grow their community
smarter and healthier. Everything from the ballot initiatives we
saw in November, where people were putting forward bond proposals
to acquire to preserve green spaces, to some of the
transportation challenges that communities are facing and are
successfully beginning to answer.
As we traveled across the country we heard communities tell
us great things that they were doing, and they would always say,
what's going on in other communities? So this is an opportunity.
Detroit is an opportunity for communities, for leaders, for
elected officials to come together to learn from each other what
is happening, what they can do. There is no requirement for any
of this, it's not some federal program. It is simply an
opportunity to learn from each other, to do the work community by
community.
You know, when you look at the environmental challenges we
face in this country, there is a host of dilemmas and challenges
that have to be addressed from the national level. That's what
we're proposing to date -- cleaner cars, cleaner fuels. There is
a whole lot of communities who want to go beyond that, who want
to make a set of local decisions that will further enhance their
environment. Detroit is about that, helping communities learn
from each other.
Thank you all very, very much.
MR. TOIV: And just a reminder, we're going to hand out
paper very shortly on this so you won't have to memorize all
those numbers. Secondly, that paper and this briefing are
embargoed until 10:06 a.m. on Saturday. Thank you.
END
3:45 P.M. EDT
Mindy E. Myers
04/30/99 06:22:33 PM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Lisa M. Kountoupes/WHO/EOP@EOP, Roger S. Ballentine/WHO/EOP@EOP
CC:
Subject: EMBARGOED 5/1/99 POTUS radio address
Forwarded by Mindy E. Myers/WHO/EOP on 04/30/99 06:22 PM
OLCOTT_E@A1
04/30/99 06:18:00 PM
Record Type:
Record
To:
See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
CC:
Subject: EMBARGOED 5/1/99 POTUS radio address
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
Embargoed
For Release
Until 10:06 A.M. EDT
Saturday, May 1, 1999
RADIO ADDRESS OF THE PRESIDENT
TO THE NATION
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Today I want to talk to you about one of
the most important steps we can take to clean the air we breathe, and protect
the health of all Americans.
Over the past generation, our nation has made enormous progress in
improving the quality of our air. In the late 1960s, carbon monoxide, lead,
and smog levels were so high in several major cities that walking to school in
the morning could be almost as harmful for young children as smoking
cigarettes.
Today, people are breathing easier all across our country. Thanks to
engineering breakthroughs and bipartisan environmental stewardship over the
past three decades, we have reduced the annual emissions of harmful pollutants
by a remarkable 70 million tons.
Over the past six years alone, even as our nation has produced the most
dynamic economy in a generation, we have improved air quality in every single
state. We've reduced toxic air pollution from chemical plants by 90 percent.
We've set the toughest standards in decades for smog and soot, which will
prevent millions of cases of childhood asthma. Just last week, the Vice
President announced a new effort to clear the haze, and restore pristine skies
to our national parks. But we must do more.
Americans love to drive, and we're driving more than ever. But the
emissions from our cars, particularly from the larger, less efficient
vehicles, threaten to erode many of the air quality gains America has
achieved. As a result, many of our states and cities are no longer on course
to meet our vital air quality goals.
So last year, EPA Administrator Carol Browner sat down with members of
the oil and auto industries, environmental and public health groups and state
and local governments, to study how we can stay on track. The level of
cooperation was unprecedented, and so was the result.
Today, I am proud to announce the details of this EPA proposal. The
proposal would achieve a dramatic reduction in air pollution for the 21st
century, and it would do so in the most cost effective and flexible ways. For
the first time, we would require all passenger vehicles, including the popular
sport utility vehicles, to meet the same tough pollution standards. And for
the first time our plan addresses not only the cars we drive, but also the
fuel they use. Because sulfur clogs and impairs anti-pollution devices, we're
proposing to cut the sulfur
content of gasoline by about 90 percent over the next five years.
Beginning in the year 2004, manufacturers would start
producing vehicles that are 75 to 95 percent cleaner than those
rolling off the assembly lines today. And the health benefits
would be enormous. Every year we can prevent thousands of
premature deaths, tens of thousands of cases of respiratory
illness and hundreds of thousands of lost work days.
According to some estimates, the benefits of the proposal
may outweigh the costs by as much as four to one. In designing
this proposal we've taken great pains to make sure these new
standards will not cause hardship for industry or reduce consumer
choice.
In many cases, existing technology will allow manufacturers
to meet the new standards and still offer the same models popular
with consumers today. To accommodate manufacturers and sport
utility vehicles, and others who face special challenges, our
proposal provides extra time to meet the new standards. We will
spend the next several months getting comments and suggestions on
the plan. Now that the EPA has published its proposal, a 60-day
period of public comment and public hearings will begin. With
the help of interested citizens, industry and public health and
other groups, we believe we can finalize this proposal by the end
of the year.
Ever since the days when thick smog was choking our major
cities, pessimists have claimed that protecting the environment
and strengthening the economy were incompatible goals. But,
today, our economy is the strongest in a generation and our
environment is the cleanest in a generation. Whether the issue
was deadly pesticides, fouled rivers or polluted air, the
American people have always proved the pessimists wrong.
With the EPA's new clean air proposal, we will prove them
wrong once again. Not only will we enhance our long-term
prosperity, we will ensure that our children inherit a living,
breathing Earth, our most important obligation of all.
Thanks for listening.
END
Message Sent To:
03/31/99 WED 16:41 FAX
002
03-31-99
03:52pm.
From-COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE DEMOCRATIC STAFF
2022250387
T-162 P.02/03 F-481
Congress of the United States
Mashington, DC 20515
March 25, 1999
The Honorable Carol M. Browner
Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Administrator Browner:
We understand that EPA will soon publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to
set more stringent emissions standards for light-dury cars and trucks. This next stage of standards
will build on the U.S. automotive industry's February 1998 voluntary National Low Emissions
Vehicle (NLEV) program. NLEV combines the latest advancements in technology to achieve
significant additional reductions in hydrocarbon and oxides of nitrogen emissions of 70 and 50
percent, respectively. If a 16 OZ. bonle of spring water represented the tailpipe emissions of a
vehicle produced in the 1970s, the emissions from the NLEV would fail to fill the bottle cap
The new emissions standards will call on the U.S. automotive industry to do more, and it
is a challenge the industry accepts. Our understanding is that the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers, which accounts for more than 90 percent of North American light-duty vehicle
sales, has stepped forward in recent weeks with a very aggressive proposal Among other things,
the Alliance proposal takes yet another step beyond the progress guaranteed by the industry's
adoption of the voluntary NLEV program by committing to standards that go beyond current,
known technology. In addition to assuring significant additional reductions in NOx, the proposal
breaks new ground by requiring cars and heavier light trucks, such as pickup trucks and sport
utility vehicles (SUVs), TO ultimately meet the same NOx standard
These new standards present major challenges, and if not designed properly, could have
both adverse and unintended consequences on consumers, competitiveness and employment in the
industry. Specifically, the NPRM should include the following components.
Reductions in fuel sulfur content to enable innovative emissions control
technologies;
Sufficient lead-time TO develop technology to address the functional needs of all
vehicles;
03/31/99 WED 16:41 FAX
003
03-31-99 03:52pm
From-COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE DEMOCRATIC STAFF
2022250387
T-162 P.03/03 F-481
The Honorable Carol M. Browner
Page 2
Fleet averages and standards that do not effectively preclude the use of promising
advanced technologies; and,
An independent third party review regarding the viability of arraining very stringent
performance levels, no later than 2004.
We urge EPA to take into account the Alliance's proposal and needs before finalizing this
NPRM. We look forward to working with you during the formal rulemaking process.
Sincerely,
Balaes a.
William d Clay
Paul Lain
Tany P. Hall
then Cardi
cc:
The Honorable Al Gore
Vice President of the United States
Mr. John Podesta, Chief of Staff
The White House
96-737 ENR
Updated October 13, 1998
CRS Report for Congress
Congressional Research Service
The Library of Congress
Nitrogen Oxides and Electric Utilities:
Revising the NSPS
Larry Parker
Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division
Summary
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx)
from utility boilers, combustion turbines, and combined-cycle units. The NOx NSPS, set
in 1979, became outdated as NOx control technology advanced. Consequently, in the
1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, Congress directed EPA to revise the 1979 NOx NSPS
for fossil fuel-fired boilers. EPA promulgated a new NOx NSPS for utility and industrial
boilers on September 16, 1998 (63 Federal Register 179, pp. 48442-49455).
While the 1979 standard was stratified by fuel-type and combustion configuration,
EPA has promulgated a uniform, one-size-fits-all performance standard. EPA argues
that a performance standard levels the playing field for all fuels, a contention disputed by
coal interests who argue that the playing field is not level because coal combustion is
inherently more NOx producing than natural gas combustion. The new uniform standard
would tend to encourage construction of natural gas-fired powerplants at the expense of
coal-fired ones. Analysis suggests, however, that the new NOx NSPS may be essentially
moot in terms of influencing fuel choice for new powerplant construction, or reducing
NOx emissions, because of overriding trends in state Best Available Control Technology
(BACT) determinations and in electric utility industry economics.
Why Regulate NOx?
Nitrogen oxides (NOx) are a family of brownish gases that enter the air through a
variety of natural and human activities. In general, any activity that involves combustion
creates some NOx, including electric power generation, automobile and truck engines, and
many industrial processes. Of the 23.4 million tons of NOx emitted in the U.S. during
1996, 6.0 million tons (26%) were from electric utilities, 7.2 million tons (31%) from
highway vehicles, 3.2 million tons (14%) from industrial combustion, 4.6 million tons
(20%) from non-road vehicles, and 0.9 million tons (4%) from industrial processes. U.S.
NOx emissions have remained roughly constant over the past 10 years, as increases in
CRS
CRS Reports are prepared for Members and committees of Congress
CRS-2
vehicles and power generation have been offset by new equipment meeting more stringent
emission standards. 1
Nitrogen oxides, both directly and because they contribute to formation of ozone,
raise human health and environmental concerns that bring them under the purview of the
CAA. Nitrogen dioxide (NO₂), the index compound for nitrogen oxides, can irritate the
lungs and lower human resistance to various respiratory infections, such as influenza. In
combination with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and in the presence of heat and
sunlight, NOx forms ozone, for which human health concerns include lung damage, chest
pain, coughing, nausea, throat irritation, and congestion. Ozone also exacerbates the
effects of bronchitis, heart disease, emphysema, and asthma.² In addition, nitrogen oxides
are precursors of fine particulates, which are suspected of significant human mortality and
morbidity effects. In 1997, EPA established a fine particulate NAAQS.
Environmental concerns about NOx emissions include its transformation into nitric
acid, a component of acid precipitation; visibility impairment; and known effects of ozone
on plant life. 3 In addition, EPA estimates that up to 40% of the nitrogen "loading" in the
Chesapeake Bay, resulting in excessive nutrient enrichment, is the result of deposition of
air-borne nitrogen oxides. In the West, nitrogen oxides contribute to visibility impairment,
particularly in southern California.
How is NOx Regulated?
The multiple effects resulting from NOx emissions have led to their control under
several different parts of the CAA; these are discussed below, concluding with a discussion
of the NSPS, which has a crucial role in setting the floor for other technological standards
for emissions from new facilities such as steam electric generating facilities.
Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) set maximum levels
of permitted pollution concentrations nationwide. NAAQS are federally enforceable with
specific deadlines for compliance; they are required by Section 109 of the CAA to protect
the public health with an "adequate margin of safety." They are periodically reviewed to
take into account the most recent health data. Three NAAQS may result in NOx controls:
NAAQS for nitrogen dioxide, ozone, and fine particulates.
In 1994, all monitoring locations in the U.S. were in compliance with the NO₂
NAAQS; however, compliance with the ozone NAAQS remains elusive in several parts
of the country, particularly in southern California, the Texas Gulf Cost, and the Northeast
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report,
1996. Research Triangle Park: Office of Air Quality, January 1998. p. 84.
2 For a discussion of human health effects of air pollution, see Lippmann, Morton. "Health
Benefits from Controlling Exposure to Criteria Air Pollutants," in Blodgett, John. Health Benefits
of Air Pollution Control: A Discussion. CRS Report for Congress, 89-161 ENR, February 27,
1989. pp. 75-144.
3 For a discussion of ozone and acid precipitation effects on vegetation, see Shriner, David S., ct.
al. Response of Vegetation to Atmospheric Deposition and Air Pollution: State of Science and
Technology Report 18. Washington, D.C.: National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program,
December 1990.
CRS-3
corridor (from Virginia to Maine). Because NOx is a precursor to ozone formation, NOx
control represents an important component in reducing ozone pollution. In recognition
of the multi-state nature of the ozone problem in the Northeast, the 1990 CAA
Amendments created an Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) to develop and coordinate
emission reduction efforts for the area. (It will be years before the new NAAQS for fine
particulates results in NOx controls.)
For areas in attainment with the NOx or ozone NAAQS, the CAA mandates states
to require new sources, such as powerplants, to install Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) as the minimum level of NOx control required of a new powerplant.⁴
State permitting agencies determine BACT on a case-by-case basis, taking into account
energy, environmental and economic impacts. BACT can be much more stringent than the
federal NSPS, but can not be less stringent than NSPS.
For areas not in attainment with the NOx or ozone NAAQS, the CAA mandates
states to require new sources to install Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate (LAER)
technology. Along with offset rules, LAER ensures that overall emissions do not increase
as a result of a new plant's operation. LAER is based on the most stringent emission rate
of any state implementation plan or achieved in practice without regard to cost or energy
use. It may not be less stringent than NSPS.
A Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program (Part C of the CAA)
focuses on ambient concentrations of pollutants (including NO₂) in areas of the country
where air quality is better than the NAAQS. The provision allows some increase in clean
areas' pollution concentrations depending on their classification. In general, historic or
recreation areas (e.g., national parks) are classified class 1 with very little degradation
allowed while most other areas are classified class 2 with moderate degradation allowed.
Class 3 areas may be permitted to degrade up to the NAAQS. New sources in PSD areas
must undergo preconstruction review and must install BACT; state permitting agencies
determine BACT on a case-by-case basis, taking into account energy, environmental, and
economic impacts. More stringent controls can be required if modeling indicates that
BACT is insufficient to avoid violating PSD emission limits, or the NAAQS itself.
The acid deposition control provisions of title IV of the 1990 Amendments focus
on total emissions from existing sources of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. For
nitrogen oxides, section 407 of title IV requires tangential- and wall-fired (dry bottom, not
cell burner equipped) boilers (group 1 boilers) designated to meet 1995 phase 1 reductions
to meet an emission limitation based on low-NOx burner technology. Regulations for
phase 1 NOx reductions were finalized in 1995. For phase 2 in the year 2000, remaining
group 1 boilers are required to meet the same standard (or more stringent if technology
and costs permit) as those covered in phase 1, and boilers with other firing configurations
(group 2 boilers) are required to meet standards based on available technology that is
comparable in costs to low-NOx burners. EPA finalized regulations for phase 2 group 1
and group 2 boilers in 1996. (61 FR 245, pp 67112-67164).
Mobile source standards, set under title II of the CAA, establish statutorily
determined emission rates for NOx (and other emission gases) for automobiles and trucks,
4 More stringent controls can be required if modeling indicates that BACT is insufficient to avoid
violating the NAAQS.
CRS-4
with specific deadlines and provisions for inspection and maintenance (I&M) programs for
ozone non-attainment areas to ensure emission rates are maintained over the expected life
of the vehicle.
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) are federal standards defining the
minimum controls necessary for new sources regardless of their location - in contrast to
the PSD and NAAQS standards that focus on ambient concentrations of pollutants.
EPA's NSPS determinations represent the floor for state BACT and LAER determinations
in case-by-case situations.
Required under Section 111 of the CAA, NSPS require major new sources to install
the best system of continuous emission reduction which has been adequately demonstrated.
In making such an assessment, the CAA requires EPA to take into account "the cost of
achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and environmental impact and
energy requirements." Also, Section 111 explicitly permits EPA to "distinguish among
classes, types, and sizes within categories of new sources for the purposes of establishing
such standards." To take into account technological innovations, the CAA originally
required EPA to review and revise NSPS every four years. But at the time of enactment
of the 1990 CAA Amendments, the last revision of the NOx NSPS for electric and non-
electric steam generating units had occurred in 1979. With substantial technological
improvements in controlling NOx having occurred during the 1980s, the 1990
Amendments (title IV, section 407(c)) required EPA to promulgate a new NOx NSPS for
electric and non-electric steam generating units by 1994 - a deadline EPA did not meet.
Thus, for constructing new powerplants, the CAA envisions the NSPS as the baseline
for control efforts - with BACT potentially more stringent than NSPS in given situations,
and LAER potentially more stringent than BACT. However, for NOx, because
technological developments had outstripped the 1979 standard, it had become virtually
irrelevant as a "floor." As discussed below, current BACT determinations are typically
more stringent than the current NOx NSPS.
Technical Inadequacy of the 1979 NOx NSPS
For utility coal-fired boilers, the 1979 NOx NSPS was 0.6 lb. of NOx per million Btu
(lb./mmBtu) for bituminous coal and 0.5 lb./mmBtu of NOx for subbituminous coal -
standards that advancements in NOx control technology outstripped in the 1980s. Indeed,
the NOx standard for existing tangential-fired coal boilers covered under the acid
deposition title of the 1990 Amendments (0.45 lb./mmBtu) is more stringent than the 1979
NSPS. Added refinements to existing low-NOx burner technology or some new clean coal
technologies, such as fluidized bed combustion (FBC) permit achievement of emissions
rates at about half the 1979 standard (to around 0.3 lb./mmBtu). The addition of more
sophisticated control technology, such as Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR), can reduce
emission rates even further (to around 0.1 lb./mmBtu). Likewise, Integrated Gasification
Combined Cycle (IGCC) technology could meet a NOx standard in the vicinity of 0.1
lb./mmBtu. Various ammonia injection technologies could make other technologies, such
as circulating fluidized-bed (CFB), capable of meeting a 0.1 lb./mmBtu standard or less.
Likewise, the 1979 NSPS for natural gas-fired boilers and combustion turbines had
fallen behind advancements in control technology. The 1979 NSPS for natural gas-fired
boilers was 0.2 lb./mmBtu. The NOx NSPS for utility gas turbines is expressed in terms
CRS-5
of volume and is currently 75 parts per million (ppm) (roughly equivalent to 0.24
lb./mmBtu). Because the 1990 CAA Amendments refers to "steam generating units," the
mandate for a new NOx NSPS only included the steam-generating portion of a combined-
cycle unit. This is important as combined-cycle is the current technology of choice for
new electric generating additions. In any case, the 1979 NSPS for gas turbines or boilers
does not reflect the current state of technology. Manufacturers currently will guarantee
new combined cycle units at 25 ppm (0.08 lb./mmBtu) with some offering units at 9 ppm
(0.03 lb./mmBtu). These levels are achieved with only combustion modifications ("dry"
controls); the addition of inside combustor catalysts, steam injection or SCR would reduce
these levels even further (to 2 ppm or less). In the case of SCR, the cost would be about
half that required to add SCR to an equivalent coal-fired unit.
Controversy over EPA New NSPS
EPA's new NOx NSPS has raised controversy with respect to the structure of the
NSPS. The 1979 NOx NSPS was stratified according to fuel-type and combustion
configuration, and based on the performance of a particular control technology applied to
each fuel/boiler type combination. EPA's new NSPS, however, provides for a "fuel-
neutral," performance-based standard of 0.15 lb./mmBtu, which all utility boilers would
have to meet regardless of fuel source.⁵ EPA argues that this approach expands available
control options by allowing the use of clean fuels (e.g., natural gas) as a control method.
Coal interests consider this performance-based approach to be a subsidy for natural
gas as natural gas technologies can meet this standard with no additional control
technology or compliance costs. In contrast, coal will be faced with either adding SCR
to conventional steam boilers or moving to currently more expensive clean coal
technologies with or without additional NOx control technologies.
In fact, a 0.15 lb./mmBtu NOx NSPS standard does not represent the best available
control technology (BACT) for either coal or natural gas boilers. BACT for coal would
be in the range of 0.1 lb./mmBtu, reflecting the capabilities of IGCC, SCR, and other
control combinations. Concern about costs and operational flexibility could justify a less
stringent standard for small boilers, or when boilers are running at low load factors.
BACT for natural gas turbines or combined-cycle units would be in the range of 0.03
lb./mmBtu (9 ppm), reflecting the current availability of units that can met that standard,
or an even more stringent 0.005 (2 ppm) that would reflect the additional capability of
SCR or other wet controls. However, a less stringent NSPS standard might be justified
by EPA after assessing economic and other factors.
Does the NSPS Matter?
NSPS represents the floor for determining BACT under the various NOx control
provisions of the CAA. At the current time, most BACT determinations result in
considerably more stringent NOx controls than the 1979 NSPS (generally as a result of
PSD provisions). Based on EPA-compiled permit data for recent coal-fired powerplants,
BACT determinations fell into the following ranges: 0.07-0.15 lb./mmBtu for fluidized-bed
5 EPA's standard is expressed in terms of output, not input. It has been converted to input
(assuming a 38% efficiency factor) to make it comparable to other numbers presented.
CRS-6
combustors with selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR), 0.17 lb./mmBtu for pulverized
coal boilers with SCR or SNCR, and 0.3-0.5 lb./mmBtu for pulverized coal boilers with
low-NOx burners and overfire air. Only one cogeneration facility reported no NOx
control and a BACT determination of 0.6 lb./mmBtu. The situation with natural gas was
even more telling with no BACT determinations above 42 ppm. Based on control
technology employed, BACT determinations for natural gas-fired facilities fell into the
following ranges: 25-42 ppm for facilities using water (steam) injection, 3.5-9 ppm for
facilities using SCR, and 9-42 ppm for facilities using dry controls.⁶
From these data, it would appear that a 0.15 lb./mmBtu standard will primarily have
the effect of adding greater incremental cost to the construction of coal-fired powerplants
relative to those fired by less NOx emitting fuels, such as natural gas. All else being equal,
this will result in coal becoming less economic compared with these other fuels for new
powerplant construction, and a corresponding reduction in NOx emissions compared with
current standards.
However, the actual effect of the new NSPS on both fuel choice and NOx emissions
may be small, given current realities in the electric generating sector and regulatory regime.
First, natural gas, not coal, is the current fuel of choice for new electric generation, a
choice reinforced by environmental considerations (acid deposition, global warming,
smog), economic considerations (fuel price, technology), and changes occurring in the
electric utility industry (competition in the generating sector, non-utility generators). A
NSPS that is less stringent than performance levels currently achieved by gas-fired electric
generating technologies will arguably have little effect on this trend in the industry.
Second, as indicated above, not only have many areas already moved beyond the
1979 NSPS in their BACT determinations, but some areas, like in California and parts of
the Northeast, new facilities have to meet standards that are often more stringent than
EPA's new NSPS. For these areas, the new NSPS is essentially irrelevant to the actual
permitting process, which is primarily the domain of states, with EPA oversight.
The controversy over the new NOx NSPS standard may involve less than would first
appear, both in terms of possible NOx emissions reductions or in terms of influencing fuel
choice for new construction. Recent data indicate that many states (and manufacturers of
generating equipment) have already moved to or beyond the new NSPS in their BACT
determinations, making both it and its anticipated emissions reductions essentially moot.
In terms of fuel mix, for at least the near-term, the existing dynamics within the electric
utility industry appear sufficiently robust that it seems unlikely that the new NOx NSPS
will have any significant effect on them. These dynamics would have to change
substantially for the NSPS to affect fuel choice and potential future emissions.
6 Based on data from the BACT/LAER clearinghouse for the last five years, as complied by EPA.
EPA. Analyzing Electric Power Generation under the CAAA. Office of Air and Radiation, July
1996. Appendix B.
97-744 ENR
July 30, 1997
CRS Report for Congress
Congressional Research Service
The Library of Congress
Air Quality and the New Ozone NAAQS:
The OTAG Process
Larry Parker and John Blodgett
Specialists
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division
Summary
The Administration has announced that the recommendations of the Ozone
Transport Assessment Group (OTAG) will provide the basis for its rule on regional
compliance strategies to assist nonattainment areas to achieve the ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Consisting of representatives of the eastern
37 states, OTAG was a 2-year process of assessing ozone transport, and developing
recommendations to mitigate it. OTAG found that ozone transport becomes increasingly
important over longer averaging times, indicating the importance of regional controls for
attaining the new 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Strategies that OTAG recommended included
controls on utilities, non-utility stationary sources, mobile sources, and fuels. However,
OTAG's recommendations with respect to utility sources were very broad. Also, OTAG
was unable to agree to a specific implementation strategy, opting instead for either a "cap
and trade" or a "rate only" approach, depending on a state's discretion and EPA's
approval.
Overview
On July 16, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
finalized a new National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone.
Accompanying the NAAQS was a White House memorandum discussing the general
approach EPA was to take in implementing the new NAAQS.¹ Recognizing ozone as a
regional pollution problem, the memorandum focuses on regional compliance strategies
for the new NAAQS. In particular, the memorandum cites the work of the Ozone
Transport Assessment Group (OTAG) as the basis of this approach. As stated therein:
1
President Clinton. "Implementation of Revised Air Quality Standards for Ozone and
Particulate Matter," Memorandum for the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
July 16, 1997.
CRS
CRS Reports are prepared for Members and committees of Congress
CRS-2
For the past 2 years the EPA has been working with the 37 most eastern States
through the Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG) in the belief that
reducing interstate pollution will help all areas in the OTAG region attain the
NAAQS. The OTAG completed its work in June 1997 and forwarded
recommendations to the EPA. Based on these recommendations, in September
1997, the EPA will propose a rule requiring States in the OTAG region that are
significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of
attainment in downwind States to submit SIPs [State Implementation Plans] to
reduce their interstate pollution. The EPA will issue the final rule by September
1998.
OTAG represented a cooperative effort between states, the EPA, and numerous
stakeholders to address the complex issue of ozone transport. However, opponents of the
new ozone NAAQS argue that the OTAG recommendations are far too vague and
ambiguous to be cited by EPA as a basis for implementation. This report provides
background on the effort, and summarizes OTAG's assessment and recommendations.
Background
Interstate transport of air pollutants is not a new problem. However, the 1990 Clean
Air Act Amendments (CAAA) provided the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
the states with new tools to address the problem. One of those tools is section 176A, a
provision that permits the EPA, either on its own or by petition from any state, to establish
a transport region to address regional pollution problems contributing to violations of a
primary NAAQS. A commission of EPA and state officials is constituted to make
recommendations to EPA on appropriate mitigating strategies. Based on the commission's
findings and recommendations, EPA is required under section 110(k)(5) to notify affected
states of inadequacies in their current SIPs and established deadlines (not to exceed 18
months) for submitting necessary revisions.
In 1995, EPA issued a planning guidance memorandum for ozone nonattainment
areas classified serious or above.² Among its provisions was a call for a 2-year regional
assessment of ozone transport and control strategies. The goal was for a consensus
between EPA and the affected states on necessary additional regional and other emission
reductions to achieve attainment in ozone transport areas. Based on results, states would
submit plans by mid-1997 for appropriate local and regional controls to achieve
attainment. If no consensus were reached, EPA stated it would use its authority under the
Clean Air Act (CAA) to ensure the required reductions are achieved (particularly §126
and/or §110).
In partnership with the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), OTAG initially
met in May, 1995. The group consisted of representatives of the eastern 37 states and
other relevant stakeholders, such as industry and environmental groups. The policy arm
of OTAG consisted of the state environmental commissioners from the 37 states and the
2 Nichols, Mary D. "Ozone Attainment Demonstration," U.S. EPA: Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation, March 2, 1995.
CRS-3
District of Columbia and senior EPA officials. It was this Policy Group that voted on the
proposals to be included in recommendations to the states and EPA.
To develop the necessary assessment data, OTAG created three subgroups and six
workgroups to address modeling and assessment issues, strategies and controls, along
with outreach and communications. Each subgroup held open working meetings to
receive input from various stakeholders. The recommendations of these subgroups were
submitted to the Policy Group via joint sessions of the Strategies and Controls and
Modeling and Assessment Subgroups. The final OTAG meeting was June 19,1997.
OTAG Assessment Results
OTAG analytical work began with the development of an improved emissions
inventory from which extensive modeling of ozone transport could be conducted. From
that modeling, two workgroups reached several conclusions with respect to ozone
transport and the anticipated benefits from increased nitrogen oxide (NOx) and volatile
organic compound (VOC) control. Among those findings particularly relevant in light of
EPA's new 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) are the
following:
The perceived contribution of ozone transport is strongly dependent on how the
ozone "problem" is defined. Local emissions are more important with respect to
peak 1-hour concentrations than with respect to lower concentration thresholds and
concentrations assessed over longer averaging times (8-hour or seasonal averages),
where larger areas and longer distance scales become increasingly important.
The central portion of the [37-State] OTAG domain is truly unique with respect to
ozone and ozone transport. It persistently has elevated ozone levels producing an
"ozone pool." Transport in any direction from this region has been implicated with
high ozone levels in neighboring areas.
High ozone levels in the southern portion of the OTAG domain are typically
associated with stagnant [pollutant] transport conditions resulting in shorter
transport scales than on average. In contrast, high ozone levels in the northern
portion of the OTAG domain are more typically associated with higher speed and
persistent transport conditions from inside the OTAG domain.
The proposed 8-hour ozone standard [now finalized] will result in significantly
more nonattainment areas across the OTAG domain which will be closer together.
This will make ozone transport more critical with respect to nonattainment than it
is under the current [now previous] standard. 3
OTAG Recommendations
Of the 37 states that constituted OTAG, 32 voted in favor of the final
recommendations with Alabama, Kentucky, Michigan, Virginia, and West Virginia voting
3 Air Quality Analysis Workgroup. OTAG Air Quality Analysis Workgroup Results
Summary. Http://capita.wustl.edu/otag/Reports/ExecSumm/AQASUM3.html
CRS-4
against. Those recommendations covered numerous areas, ranging from utility controls
to increased research.
Size of Transport Region. Which states should comprise the ozone transport region
was debated continuously during OTAG deliberations. Particularly, states west of the
Mississippi River and some southern states argued that their emissions had de minimus
effects on ozone transport. OTAG recommended that these "coarse-grid" states be
exempt from OTAG-related controls. These states include North Dakota, South Dakota,
Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Minnesota, Iowa, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi,
and Florida, as well as parts of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Michigan,
Wisconsin, Missouri, Alabama, and Georgia. OTAG did recommend that Iowa work with
Wisconsin in developing implementation plans for southwestern Wisconsin; that Kansas
work with Missouri on implementation plans for Kansas City; and, that Oklahoma, Texas,
Arkansas, and Louisiana share modeling results with Missouri.
Utility NOx Controls. Potential increased NOx control on utility plants was one of
the most contentious issues within OTAG. The final recommendation reflects this
contention by being wide enough to cover all points of view. Specifically, OTAG
recommended a range in the 26 "fine grid" states between current Clean Air Act controls
(i.e., existing requirements) to the lesser of 85% reduction from 1990 rates or a 15
lb/mmBtu performance standard (a significant increase in stringency). It is arguable how
such a wide range provides any guidance to EPA on implementing regional controls.
Essentially, the range gives EPA a free hand in deciding on appropriate tonnage levels.
OTAG did recommend that any statewide tonnage levels proposed by EPA be revised
if additional subregional modeling or air quality analyses justified it. Likewise, OTAG
recommended that EPA consider any submitted comments and subregional modeling with
respect to proposed statewide tonnage levels prior to finalizing SIP calls.
Non-Utility Stationary Source NOx Control. OTAG's recommendations for non-
utility stationary sources mirrored those for the utility sources. Dividing non-utility
facilities into medium and large sources, OTAG recommended that large sources be
controlled in proportion to how much utility sources are controlled. If utility sources are
required to reduce 55%, large non-utility sources should be required to reduce 55%. This
parallel requirement weakens as the utility reductions increase; for an 85% utility source
reduction, OTAG recommends only a 70% reduction for large non-utility sources.
Requirements for medium sources are also based on utility source requirement, but
considerably less stringent. For 55%-65% utility reductions, no medium non-utility
control is recommended. For 75%-85% utility reduction, OTAG recommends that
medium non-utility sources be required to install reasonably available control technology
(RACT), a determination made by the states based on EPA guidance. As with the utility
control recommendations, OTAG urges flexibility if additional modeling and air analyses
warrant it.
Federal Emission Control Measures. The federal government has a major role in
assisting states achieve compliance, particularly with respect to new stationary source
control and mobile source control. OTAG outlines nine specific areas where the federal
government should develop, adopt and implement stringent national NOx and/or VOC
control requirements to assist the OTAG region in achieving compliance with the ozone
CRS-5
NAAQS. These areas include architectural and industrial maintenance coatings, consumer
and commercial products, autobody refinishing, reformulated gasoline, small engines,
heavy duty highway engines, heavy duty non-road diesel engines, and locomotive engines.
OTAG also recommended EPA act on some fuel related items. These
recommendations included EPA (1) adopting a rule on an appropriate fuel sulfur standard
to improve long-term performance of emission control devices, (2) evaluating emission
benefits and other effects of cetane adjustments on current diesel engines and adopting
standards as appropriate, and (3) considering and potentially adopting new diesel fuel
standards by the year 2004 through existing deliberative processes.
Finally, OTAG supported and encouraged adoption of a National Low Emission
Vehicle Program.
Specific State Actions. Among the provisions OTAG recommended are that "fine
grid" states consider adopting include enhanced inspection and maintenance (I&M)
program in urban areas with populations greater than 500,000, and the continued use of
reformulated gasoline (RFG) in both mandated and opt-in areas.
Trading Program. Part of the controversy over utility source control involved
proposed market-based approaches to implementing such controls. OTAG did
considerable work on market mechanisms and found several benefits to these
implementation approaches, including: (1) lower compliance costs, (2) incentive for early
reductions, (3) incentive for over-control of sources, (4) incentive for innovation, and (5)
administrative flexibility.
However, OTAG was unable to agree on a basic structure for a market mechanism.
Some states, particularly those in the northeast, advocated a "cap and trade" program. A
cap and trade program places a total emission limit (i.e., cap), expressed in tons of
pollutants, on specific emission sources in an area. The allowable amount of pollution is
then allocated to these sources according to an agreed upon formula. Sources that emit
less pollution than their allocation may trade the unused portion of their allocation to
sources that exceed their allocation, or bank those unused pollution "credits" for use in a
future year. A system like this has been successfully implemented to reduce sulfur dioxide
emissions under title IV of the CAA and is being implemented in the Ozone Transport
Region (OTR) to reduce NOx emissions.
Under a cap and trade system, emissions are not permitted to increase over time.
Thus, as production increases, new emissions from either new sources (or expanded
production at existing sources) has to be offset with increased controls at existing sources.
Industry groups have objected to this increasing limitation on their emissions and argued
for an alternative that controls the rate of pollution emitted, but not the total amount
emitted (i.e., no cap). Under a "rate only" approach, a source would emit as much of a
pollutant as it wished, as long as it did not emit them at a rate greater than stipulated
under the rate only approach. If a source emitted at below the stipulated rate, it would
receive credits amounting the difference between its actual rate and the stipulated rate
times its production for a given year. It could trade or bank the resulting credits. If a
source exceeded the rate, it could purchase emission credits for the excess amount (based
on its total production for a year) from a source that emitted pollution at a rate lower than
CRS-6
that agreed upon for that year. Currently, no trading programs are based on this approach.
As was the case with the utility control recommendations, OTAG's final
recommendation with respect to a trading program encompasses both points of view. The
cap and trade program, called "Track 1," and the rate only program, called "Track 2," are
both identified by OTAG as options for states to adopt in implementing utility (and
possibly other) control measures. OTAG acknowledged several uncertainties with respect
to this recommendation including (1) the need for further work on rate only approaches
to implement them with same level of confidence and certainty as the cap and trade
system; and (2) how any "cross-track" trading could occur between cap and trade states
and rate only states. OTAG did note that EPA would have an integral part in overseeing
the implementation and integrity of these approaches.
For its part, OTAG recommends a joint state/EPA workgroup address the issues of
implementation of Track 1 and Track 2, along with identifying key design features that
states could select in developing a NOx trading program. OTAG believes its work in this
area provides a sound basis for the workgroup's task. In addition OTAG suggested the
workgroup address other concerns with respect to modeling, market systems, and local
control requirements.
Conclusions
Ozone transport is a complex phenomenon with potential winners and losers. With
major stakes involved, it is not surprising that some characterize OTAG's final
recommendations as vague and ambiguous, where others see needed flexibility. In any
event, OTAG's work assessing ozone transport moves the debate forward and clarifies an
issue made more important because of the new 8-hour standard.
OTAG does specify some specific approaches to the problem, particularly with
respect to mobile sources and fuel issues. However, with respect to utility control, OTAG
leaves open the choice of implementation approaches (such as cap and trade or rate only)
and appropriate control levels (such as 0.15 lb./mmBtu for NOx). Overall, OTAG
appears to sanction flexibility, both for the states and for EPA in deciding on how to
respond to the ozone transport issue, and how to make necessary reductions.
The White House memorandum outlining the Administration's approach to
implementing the new ozone standard states that EPA will propose a rule for the OTAG
region in September 1997. At that time, EPA's interpretation of OTAG's
recommendations will be published, with a final rule scheduled for September, 1998. How
that process proceeds may reveal the true achievement of OTAG and the future of such
cooperative approaches.
97-721 ENR
Updated June 19, 1998
CRS Report for Congress
Congressional Research Service
The Library of Congress
Air Quality Standards: EPA's Final Ozone and
Particulate Matter Standards
John E. Blodgett, James E. McCarthy, and Larry B. Parker
Specialists
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division
Summary
On July 18, 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated new
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone and particulate matter.¹ The new
standards, chosen to provide additional health protection, generated controversy. They
will require further pollution reductions, but projections of impacts on specific areas are
speculative because implementation is several years off. While many in Congress
criticized the new standards, no bill nor rider to block them has been considered;
however, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178) was
amended (Title VI) to specify deadlines for designating nonattainment, require federal
funding of monitoring for the new particulate standard, and coordinate a regional haze
rule with the new particulate standard. Court challenges are also being mounted.
Background
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA sets national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) for pollutants that are emitted from numerous sources and that endanger public
health. NAAQS are set solely on the basis of protecting health (costs and feasibility are
taken into account in implementing NAAQS, a process that is primarily a state
responsibility).
The Act requires EPA to review the NAAQS every 5 years, to take into account new
scientific information. 2 On the basis of the most recent of these reviews for ozone and
particulate matter, EPA revised the ozone standard and the existing particulate standard,
¹Published in the Federal Register on July 18 (62 FR 38652-38896), the standards became
effective September 16, 1997. Copies of the documents, including related rules and a discussion
of implementation, are available at: http://tnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov/naaqsfin/index.htm ; see CRS
Report 97-8, Air Quality: Background Analysis of EPA's 1997 Ozone and Particulate Matter
Standards.
2 See CRS Report 97-722, Air Quality Standards: the Decisionmaking Process.
CRS
CRS Reports are prepared for Members and committees of Congress
CRS-2
which regulates "coarse" particles up to 10 microns in diameter (PM₁₀), and issued a new
standard for "fine" particulates, those 2.5 microns in diameter or smaller (PM₂.₅).³
The Final Standards
As revised, the ozone and PM standards are as follows:
OZONE: the new ozone standard is 0.08 parts per million measured over 8 hours,
with compliance determined by averaging over 3 years the annual fourth-highest
daily maximum at an ambient air quality monitoring site.
PM10 the PM₁₀ standard remains at an annual maximum concentration of 50
micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m³) and a 24-hour concentration of 150 µg/m³; the
measurement statistic for the latter is revised to be based on the 99th percentile of
24-hour PM₁₀ concentrations at a monitoring station.
PM₂.₅ the new PM₂.₅ standard is set at an annual maximum concentration of 15
µg/m³ based on the 3-year average of annual arithmetic mean PM₂.₅ concentrations
from one or more community-oriented monitors; and a 24-hour concentration of
65 µg/m³, based on the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour PM₂₅
concentrations at a population-oriented monitoring station.
In most areas of the country, the revised ozone standard is more stringent than what
the previous standard required; the PM₁₀ standard is somewhat less stringent than the
former standard (because of the change in the statistical measure of compliance); and the
new PM₂₅ standard will likely require controls in some areas with elevated levels of sulfur
oxides, nitrogen oxides, and/or organic fine particles.
While the CAA requires NAAQS to be set without regard for costs, EPA prepared
a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA)⁴ in compliance with Executive Order 12866. Despite
many uncertainties described in the RIA, EPA projects that the annual monetized benefits
in 2010 of partial attainment of the ozone standard will at best equal costs (and may be
less), but that the benefits of the PM₂.₅ standard will exceed costs 2 to 5 times.
Implementation
The impact of these new standards will be determined first by designations of
nonattainment, which will trigger preparation of State Implementation Plans (SIP), and
second by the air pollution controls contained in each SIP. The CAA allows areas 10
years from the date of nonattainment designation to meet a NAAQS (with 2 years of
extensions possible). Under Title VI of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
³The two sizes represent distinct pollutants: PM₁₀ consists largely of dust-like particles, such as fly
ash, while PM₂₅ typically forms from gaseous precursors, including sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides,
and volatile organic compounds. Control regimens likewise differ.
4EPA, Regulatory Impact Analyses for the Particulate Matter and Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards and Proposed Regional Haze Rule (1997), accessible at
http://ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov/naaqsfin/ria.htm.
CRS-3
(TEA 21), enacted June 9, 1998, Governors are required to submit designations of the
new ozone nonattainment areas by July 18, 1999, and EPA is required to promulgate final
designations by July 18, 2000. This would place the attainment deadline for ozone in July
2010, with a possible 2 years of extensions. The PM₂.₅ deadlines will occur later. TEA
21 requires designation of PM₂.₅ nonattainment areas no later than December 31, 2005.
This would place the attainment deadline for PM₂₅ at December 31, 2015, with extensions
possible to the end of 2017.
Because we don't yet know which areas will be designated nonattainment, the
location and magnitude of impacts for both the new ozone and PM₂.₅ standards are
necessarily speculative. This suggests that projections of nonattainment areas (including
EPA's) based on historical data should be viewed with caution. Nonattainment
designations for ozone will be made in July 2000 based on the most recently available 3-
year set of data. About 100 counties are currently out of compliance with the old 1-hour
standard; under the new standard EPA estimates about 280 may be out of compliance.
Given the time necessary to set up a proper monitoring system for the new PM₂.₅
standard, it will be at least 2002 (and more likely later) before designations of these
nonattainment areas can begin. During this time other provisions of the CAA that reduce
PM₂₅ will be implemented, including Phase 2 of the acid precipitation control program and
various nitrogen oxides control strategies. Whether an area will be in attainment with the
new PM₂.₅ standard will depend partly on the implementation of these other CAA
provisions. Most current analyses of the impact of the PM₂.₅ standard use modified
historic PM₁₀ data; the accuracy of such analyses is problematic. Projecting from current
data, EPA estimates that about 150 counties will fail to meet the new PM₂.₅ standard,
compared to 41 failing to meet the old PM₁₀ standard.
For PM₁₀, the impact of the new standards is less speculative, since data from an
established monitoring network can be used for determining attainment. A number of the
41 areas currently designated nonattainment for PM₁₀ are expected to meet the revised
standard.
EPA, sensitive to the potential impacts of the new standards, contends that
implementation will be flexible. According to the agency, its implementation plan will give
"states, local governments and business the new flexibility they'll need to meet protective
public health standards in a reasonable, cost-effective way."5 For ozone, EPA proposes
to rely on regional, market-oriented implementation strategies (such as those
recommended by the Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG))6 to achieve attainment
at least cost. As stated by EPA:
The Ozone Implementation Package will use a regional, state-sponsored plan to
address the long-distance transport of ozone. As that plan's reductions take effect, the
vast majority of areas that do not currently meet the new ozone standard will be able
⁵This and the following quotations on implementation are from EPA, FACT SHEET,
Implementation of the Standards (June 25, 1997), accessible at:
⁶See CRS Report 97-744, Air Quality and the New Ozone NAAQS: The OTAG Process. EPA
proposed regulations implementing the OTAG recommendations October 10, 1997.
CRS-4
to do so without any additional new local pollution controls or measures. In order to
help these areas avoid burdensome measures associated with non-compliance, EPA will
create a new "transitional" classification. These areas would not have to comply fully
with the new ozone standard by achieving local pollution controls until at least 2004,
with no compliance determination required until at least 2007.
For PM₂.₅, EPA appears to be focusing on providing ample time for areas to develop
cost-effective control strategies, along with committing the Agency to a timely (i.e., five-
year) review of the new standard to avoid implementing a too stringent - or too lax -
standard. As stated by EPA:
The Particulate Matter Implementation Package will give businesses ample time to
find the most cost-effective pollution controls. In addition, EPA will complete another
full scientific review of the health effects of fine particulates before any
"non-attainment" designations are made or local controls mandated. EPA will allow five
years to gather and analyze necessary data, and then use its discretion under the Clean
Air Act to allow another three years for areas that are not in compliance to submit air
quality plans on how they will meet the new standard. Following another year and a half
for review of the plans, it will be several more years before many areas will actually
have to comply with the new standard.
Responses to the New Standards
Even before EPA formally proposed the new standards in November 1996,
stakeholders were marshaling evidence and arguments for their preferred outcomes - in
general, business and industry oppose more stringent standards, and public health and
environmental interest groups seek more stringent ones. During the public comment
period on the proposed standards, EPA received over 50,000 comments. Congress, too,
has been active: numerous hearings addressed the proposed standards, and Members wrote
letters and forwarded comments to the Administrator and the President.
While the final decision was welcomed by most public health and environmental
interests, business and industry expressed strong disappointment at the stringency of the
new ozone and PM₂₅ NAAQS. Many state and local governments (especially those in the
Midwest) objected to the new rules, as well, but other states and localities (primarily in the
Northeast) have been supportive.
Proponents of the new standards assert:
scientific evidence of adverse health effects from ozone and PM air pollution is
compelling;
more stringent standards ensure progress toward meeting the CAA requirement to
protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety; they cite EPA estimates
that 15,000 premature deaths will be avoided per year (in the case of the PM₂₅
standard), along with the avoidance of other adverse health effects;
welfare benefits such as crop yields and forest health will be enhanced; and
EPA analysis indicates a highly favorable cost-benefit ratio for the PM₂₅ standard.
Critics of EPA's action contend:
the standards are not justified by the scientific evidence;
CRS-5
the costs and adverse impacts on regions and sectors of the economy are excessive;
they cite EPA's estimate that the cost-benefit ratio is negative for the new ozone
standard;
EPA failed to comply with certain regulatory impact assessment procedures
required by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; and
the new standards will disrupt the process for bringing into compliance areas out
of attainment with the previous standards, as spelled out in the 1990 CAA
Amendments.
On July 18, 1997, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, business, fuel
retailer, and trucking interests filed suit challenging the final standards. At last count, 38
interest groups were contesting the standards substantively or procedurally; or challenging
EPA's implementation process.
Congressional Response
Congress had a number of legislative options for responding to EPA's final standards,
including review of the regulations under a new congressional review process (5 U.S.C.
801-808), use of the appropriations process, amendments to the Clean Air Act or to other
moving legislation, or a free-standing bill focused on the NAAQS decision.
For a time, opponents of the new rules organized behind H.R. 1984, a free-standing
bill introduced by Representatives Klink, Boucher, and Upton and cosponsored by both
the Chairman and ranking minority member of the House Commerce Committee. The bill
had 199 cosponsors as of April 1998. Companion legislation, S. 1084, was introduced by
Senator Inhofe. Both bills would have provided a 4-year moratorium on the promulgation
of new or revised ozone and particulate standards, and would have required EPA to
complete another review of the old standards, deciding whether to retain them, revise
them, or promulgate new standards within 4 - 5 years of enactment.
Markup of these bills was not scheduled, however, in part because they appeared to
lack sufficient support to overcome a likely Presidential veto. This apparent stalemate
moved Senator Inhofe to offer compromise language in the form of an amendment
(S.Amdt. 1687) to the transportation reauthorization bill (S. 1173). The amendment was
approved by voice vote March 4, 1998, after it was agreed to by EPA and the bipartisan
leadership of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. The transportation
bill passed the Senate March 12.
The House version of the bill (H.R. 2400) passed April 1, without provisions
addressing the air quality standards. After some discussion, the conferees adopted the
Senate amendment, with one additional provision delaying implementation of a proposed
regional haze program, as Title VI of the bill. The conference report (H. Rept. 105-550)
passed both the House and Senate May 22. President Clinton signed the bill (P.L. 105-
178) June 9.
The Inhofe amendment addressed several issues. First, in promulgating the standards
last July, EPA and the President announced an implementation schedule that was longer
than that mandated under the Clean Air Act. Opponents of the standards have expressed
CRS-6
concern that court challenges might force EPA to disregard its intended schedule in favor
of the speedier statutory requirements. The amendment prevents a court challenge on this
point by codifying the announced implementation schedule, giving EPA until July 2000 to
designate ozone nonattainment areas and December 2005 to designate PM₂.₅ areas.
Second, the new PM₂.₅ standard requires the establishment of a monitoring network
in all 50 states. EPA has promised to fund these monitors. The amendment affirms EPA's
stated intention to provide federal funding for the "establishment, purchase, operation and
maintenance" of a PM₂₅ monitoring network, and requires that the money come entirely
through new federal funding, not reprogramming of other state grant funds.
Third, in response to concerns by farm groups that agricultural activities such as
ploughing and agricultural burning will be targeted for PM₂.₅ regulation (which EPA
denies),⁷ the amendment requires EPA to conduct a field study of the ability of the Federal
Reference Method used in analyzing PM₂₅ samples to differentiate types of PM₂.₅ particles,
and requires a report to Congress within two years of enactment.
Fourth, as programs to meet EPA's proposed regional haze rule⁸ could overlap with
PM₂.₅ controls, the amendment coordinates the schedule by which the two regulations
would be implemented.
Finally, the amendment makes clear that none of its provisions is intended to affect
pending litigation or to be interpreted as a ratification of the standards.
While passage of this amendment probably ends debate on the standards in this
Congress, it leaves unresolved several issues raised by opponents, including the possibility
that ozone nonattainment areas could be subject to two overlapping sets of requirements
and questions regarding the legal authority for the exemption of "transitional" ozone
nonattainment areas from numerous statutory requirements.
Conclusion
The 5-year review process of the ozone and PM NAAQS has been completed, with
EPA having decided to tighten the ozone standard and to refocus the particulate standard
toward "fine" particles (PM₂₅). Although Congress could still take additional steps, and
the courts have yet to speak, debate on the standards for this Congress may have ended
with passage of Title VI of the transportation bill, codifying EPA's announced deadlines.
In Title VI and in the EPA appropriation for FY 1998, the Congress also clarified its intent
that additional research be conducted and that EPA provide full funding to the states for
a network of PM monitors. By fostering research and monitoring, Congress hopes to
ensure that the next 5-year NAAQS review will be based on more robust scientific
findings. Enhancing the scientific base could also inform any reauthorization of the Clean
Air Act.
⁷For a further discussion of these issues, see CRS Report 97-670, Agriculture and EPA's
Proposed Air Quality Standards for Ozone and Particulates.
⁸61 Federal Register 65764-65778 (December 13, 1996); see CRS Report 97-1010, Regional
Haze: EPA's Proposal to Improve Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas.
Greenwire, The Environmental News Daily
http://www.cloakroom.com/pubs/greenwire/g980929.htm
2
ENVIRO GROUPS: Op-Ed Connects Enviros, Trial Lawyers
The Sierra Club and the Assn. of Trial Lawyers of America have "remarkably similar"
campaign contribution lists, according to an op-ed by David Ridenour, VP of the DC-based
National Center for Public Policy Research, in the Idaho Statesman.
His review of Federal Election Commission reports shows that of the 26 Senate and
House candidates who have received direct contributions from the Sierra Club between
1/97 and 9/98, 88% also receive ATLA contributions. And three Senate challengers
endorsed by the Sierra Club -- Jay Nixon (D) running against Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond
(R-MO); Rep. Charles Schumer (D-NY) challenging Sen. Alfonse D'Amato (R-NY); and
Michael Coles (D) challenging Sen. Paul Coverdale (R-GA), all received ATLA
contributions.
Ridenour writes, "the two groups have several interests in common. Both use junk
science as a means of winning public opinion and lawsuits."
There are about 500 environmental lawsuits at the federal level each year, according to
Ridenour. "Litigation has become such a significant part of environmental policy that
it
is getting in the way of real environmental progress." Ridenour says the Sierra Club Legal
Defense Fund "has profited handsomely" from this litigation, and that its political
involvement "isn't just about advancing green policies, but making greenbacks" (Idaho
Statesman, 9/23). (Back to Contents)
AIR AND WATER POLLUTION
3
SMOG: Utilities Predict Higher Rates, Power Shortages
Electric utilities in Kentucky, Indiana and several other Midwestern states "are certain
of two things: Complying [with the US EPA's new nitrogen oxide restrictions] will cost
billions of dollars, and consumers ultimately will foot the bill."
Columbus, OH-based American Electric Power estimates that it will spend $1.6 billion
on pollution control equipment to comply with the rules announced on 9/24, and it may
consider switching from coal to cleaner-burning natural gas, according to spokesperson Jim
See (Greenwire, 9/25) (Andrew Melnykovych, Louisville Courier-Journal, 9/25).
Lorie Kessler of Detroit Edison estimated modifications would cost her company $400
million (Mastio/Mullinnix, Detroit News, 9/25). Mary Carpenter, spokesperson for
Wisconsin Electric Power Co., said the cost of compliance with the mandate would be
recovered through higher rates.
Power Outages Possible?
Utility officials in several states said the five-year implementation deadline "will
require several power plants to be shut down at one time," which could lead to power
outages. Lloyd Eagan, director of the Wisconsin Bureau of Air Management: "If [utilities]
extend outages too long, they could run into a problem if there's a hot or early summer -- if
there's not enough electricity to go around" (Alisa Lapolt, AP/St. Paul Pioneer-Press,
9/25).
Detroit Edison's Skiles Boyd said installation of selective catalytic reduction
technology at a single plant would require an outage of about 20 months. Boyd: "You can't
meet the 2003 deadline in all the Midwest and still supply the energy that will be
demanded. There is not enough generation to meet that need" (Nigel Hunt,
Reuters/PlanetArk, 9/28).
Midwest Governors May Fight Regulations
The regulations "drew the ire" of Indiana Gov. Frank O'Bannon (D), who "repeated
industry concerns" that the compliance period is too short and could lead to power
disruptions. O'Bannon spokesperson Cheryl Reed, said the governor may join with other
Midwestern states to oppose the mandate in court, as well as lobby Congress and the
4 of 13
9/29/98 3:22 PM
Greenwire, The Environmental News Daily
http://www.cloakroom.com/pubs/greenwire/g980929.hhm
Clinton administration to rewrite the new rules (Doug Sword, Indianapolis Star/News,
9/25).
Robert Hodanbosi, chief of the Ohio air pollution control division, said the state
preferred an alternative proposal by six Midwestern states that would have cut other
sources of pollution and some power plant emissions. Ohio Gov. George Voinovich (R):
"I'm very disappointed that the EPA has once again chosen a heavy-handed, punitive
approach over sound science and reasonable regulation" (Greenwire, 6/26)
(Edwards/Lowe, Columbus Dispatch, 9/25).
However, Tennessee Gov. Don Sundquist (R), "whose administration had blasted the
proposal as tyrannical," is now backing the plan. Justin Wilson, the governor's top
environmental adviser, said the EPA made adjustments to address the state's concerns
(Knoxville News-Sentinel, 9/26).
Northeast States, Enviros Worried About Implementation
The New York Dept. of Environmental Conservation "lauded" the regulations but "said
their effectiveness would depend largely on how the states implement the rules." DEC
spokesperson Sam Thernstrom: "It is possible that some of the flexibility could allow
Midwestern states to approach meeting the reductions in ways that will minimize the
benefits to interstate air pollution" (Ronald Powers, AP/Boston Globe, 9/25). The Ozone
Transport Commission is recommending that a "cooperative federal-state mechanism" be
developed to monitor implementation (OTC release, 9/24).
Robert Varney, New Hampshire Environmental Services commissioner: "Any attempts
to delay or replace [the rule] with a less stringent plan would place our state at an economic
disadvantage compared with states with weaker environmental standards" (AP/Boston
Globe, 9/25).
But William Tyndall, environmental services VP of Cinergy Corp., argued that
Northeast states sought the tough NOx standards to raise Midwest energy costs, reducing
the competitive advantage that comes with low energy costs. He also called the decision a
"political victory" for Northeast governors who don't want to address the problem of auto
emissions in their own region (Ben Kaufman, Cincinnati Enquirer, 9/25).
CLF Concerned That The Cuts Aren't Enough
The Boston-based Conservation Law Foundation which "expressed concern" that the
new rule would not result in adequate power plant emission reductions in New England. It
noted that New Hampshire, with the highest average utility smog emissions of any
Northeastern state, is not required to reduce emissions at all. CLF attorney David Marshall:
"[The] rule will not clean up smog in the Northeast, but it is a good start. We now need to
clean up pollution in out own backyard as well" (CLF release, 9/24). (Back to Contents)
4
SMOG II: NOx Rules -- How's It Playing?
The US EPA plan to cut nitrogen oxide emissions in the eastern US drew praise from
several newspapers:
New York Times: "[EPA Administrator Carol Browner's] ruling represents a triumph
of science and common sense over a sustained lobbying campaign by the Midwestern
governors and the coal-fired electric utilities that will bear most of the cost of the new
program" (9/29).
Baltimore Sun: "While Atlantic states have spent tens of millions of dollars to reduce
unhealthy smog levels, they are foiled by coal-fired power plants to the west that spew a
pall of pollution into eastbound air currents. Better air quality helping millions who
suffer from respiratory problems -- depends on a common effort to take out the NOx"
(9/29).
Boston Globe columnist Thomas Oliphant: "A deep bow of respect is in order to
Carol Browner, who showed, moreover, that a way of proceeding could be found that
involved the states as partners and that harnessed new technologies and emission-control
methods " (9/29).
5 of 13
9/29/98 3:22 PM
Greenwire, The Environmental News Daily
http://www.cloakroon.com/pubs/greenwire/g980929.htm
Portland [ME] Press Herald: "The US EPA made the only credible choice it could
with regard to air pollution produced in the Midwest and along the Atlantic seaboard"
(9/26).
Charlotte Observer: "The onus [is] on the EPA to demonstrate in a convincing fashion
how North CArolina's power plant emissions cause air quality problems for other regions.
IF the EPA has clear evidence that power plants are the problem, then North Carolina has a
responsibility to get cracking and fix it" (9/28). (Back to Contents)
5
REFORMULATED GAS: EPA Issues Expanded RFG Rule
The US EPA last week issued a final rule modifying the reformulated fuels program to
give states greater flexibility in complying with the federal ozone standard.
Under the new rule, states may add to their RFG programs areas which did not meet the
federal ozone standard when the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments were passed, but which
now are in attainment.
The "action provides states the flexibility to use RFG as an additional cost-effective
option to help avoid future air quality problems in redesignated areas," the EPA says.
Currently, areas in 12 states and the District of Columbia participate in the RFG program
(EPA release, 9/25). (Back to Contents)
6
MTBE: California Gov Vetoes Alternative Oxygenate Bill
California Gov. Pete Wilson (R-CA) yesterday vetoed legislation that would have
enabled gasoline companies to use substitutes for MTBE in their fuel, reports the AP.
Critics say that regulations adopted in 1991 by the state Air Resources Board made
MTBE the only oxygenate allowed in California gas. But Wilson said that the new bill,
sponsored by state Assemblywoman Debra Bowen (D), was designed to promote ethanol at
the expense of other oxygenates.
Wilson: "State law should not be used as a means to achieve market advantage,
especially when the consequences will foul our air" (AP/San Francisco
Chronicle/Examiner online, 9/28). (Back to Contents)
7
DIESEL: Team Develops Cleaner, More Powerful Engine
Energy Secretary Bill Richardson last week announced a "major technological
breakthrough that will enable diesel engines to operate in a cleaner and more efficient
manner."
A partnership between scientists at the Argonne, IL federal scientific laboratory,
General Motors' Electro-Motive Division and the Assn. of American Railroads was able to
change fuel and oxygen levels and operating conditions to improve the diesel engine's
internal combustion process and lower both hydrocarbon levels and nitrogen oxide
emissions. The result both "boost[ed] engine power" and lowered smog-contributing
emissions.
The two-year, $2 million project is seeking additional funding "to build a fully
integrated system for a full locomotive to see how the technique can be applied to trucks
and automobiles." Richardson: "This is an excellent example of government-industry
partnerships, and the results are the first of many we expect from this transportation
technology center" (Agence France Press, 9/25). (Back to Contents)
8
AG WASTE: CO Gov Plugs Initiative; Action In NC, AR, OK
Colorado Gov. Roy Romer (D) last week announced his support of a ballot initiative
that would require the state to regulate corporate hog farms.
6 of 13
9/29/98 3:22 PM
September 24, 1998
RECOMMENDED TELEPHONE CALL FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
TO: Governor Cecil H. Underwood (R-WV)
DATE: September 24, 1998
RECOMMENDED BY: Larry Stein
PURPOSE: To discuss today's release by the EPA of an ozone
transport rule that will require the reduction of nitrogen oxide
emissions in a 22-state region in the eastern United States at
the request of Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-WV).
BACKGROUND: Earlier today the EPA released a final rule that
focuses on reducing the region to region transport of nitrogen
oxide, a significant contributor to smog. These reductions,
which are required under the Clean Air Act, are necessary for
meeting the current health standard for smog and are the central
component for meeting the Administration's health standards for
smog announced by the President in July, 1997. A stringent rule
on this point has been sought by the Northeastern states and the
environmental community for some time, and both will be very
pleased with today's announcement. Most of the South and Midwest
have argued for less stringent requirements both in terms of
emission reduction and timing, and some of those states will
strongly oppose this announcement. Much of this debate has been
reflected in Congress and the President has received letters and
calls (mostly opposing a stringent rule) from Members on both
sides of aisle.
Under the new rule, the EPA will provide 22 eastern states
(including West Virginia) with reduction requirements for
decreasing the nitrogen oxide emissions that are transported
across states and create smog problems downwind. For states in
the Midwest and South this will mean that they likely will have
to impose controls on large sources of pollution like utilities
that would not otherwise be required in this time frame.
The rule, which is based on extensive technical analysis and a
wealth of input from states, groups, industry and other
stakeholders, is designed to be both cost effective and allow
states great flexibility in meeting their reduction requirements.
For example, states will be allowed to achieve reductions from
any source they choose and they will be encouraged to develop
market-based emissions trading to lower costs. Additionally,
states will have great flexibility in the implementation of the
rule and up to a year to submit their clean air plans.
Governor Underwood led a group of governors from five other
states (Alabama, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee and Virginia) to
develop an alternative proposal which generally requires less
reductions, is more state-centered and provides states with a
longer time period to come into compliance. Governor Underwood
may also be concerned that the new rules will harm his state's
coal producers by favor non-coalburning industries.
TOPICS OF DISCUSSION:
Senator Byrd suggested you call to
talk directly to the Governor about
this rule, and to make clear that
you understand his concern about
the ability of his state to comply
without adverse economic impact.
The Administration believes
strongly that this kind of control
on transported ozone is vital to
providing healthy air for citizens,
particularly children, in their
state and all of the eastern U.S.,
and you know the Governor shares
that commitment.
The White House has worked hard
with EPA during this rulemaking
process to ensure that the
implementation of this rule will be
as flexible and mindful of the
circumstances of each state as is
possible. A particular example is
the provision added since the
publication of the proposed rule
that will provide each state with a
pool of emission credits to be used
to address concerns about
reliability for utilities and to
encourage early action. These
amount of these credits available
corresponds to a one year delay of
the date on which new controls must
be in place.
I have talked with the CEQ and they
indicate that the impact of this
rule on coal consuming businesses
is minimal.
The White House has instructed EPA
to work closely with each state to
maximize flexibility and minimize
impact, and to give full
consideration to the particular
circumstances of each state within
the requirements of the law. The
White House is committed to making
sure this is done.
CONTACT PERSON AND
TELEPHONE NUMBER (S) : Governor Cecil H. Underwood
304-558-2000
DATE OF SUBMISSION: September 24, 1998
ACTION:
ccitiger
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
(CEP)
Mashington, DC 20515
AUG
August 6, 1998
The Honorable William J. Clinton
President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
As the members of the Tennessee Congressional Delegation, we are writing to urge you
to seek a compromise on the pending Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposal that
would require an 85% reduction in nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions in a 22-state region of the
Eastern United States. We have serious concerns that a "one size fits all" approach could have
significant implications for the environment, energy use, and the economy of our state.
As you may know, 13 Governors from the Southeast and the Midwest have offered
alternative strategies that would achieve air quality standards at lower costs and avoid disruptions
in electricity supply. Though the proposals contain some different elements, each one advocates
the same basic control levels and cost-effective approach. These proposals ensure that the states
come into compliance with the eight hour air quality standards in an economical fashion, allow
the states to maintain their traditional role in implementing the Clean Air Act, and maintain the
availability of a reliable electric power system. The Governors' proposals represent a major
milestone in regional cooperation, that we believe should be recognized and embraced as EPA
works to develop a fair and effective plan that meets our environmental and economic needs.
The Governors' proposals are based on careful air quality modeling assessments and
economic analyses performed by various state environmental agencies. Further, their strategies
are similar in design and effect to the reduction plans already developed by the electric utilities,
as well as other industry sectors. In fact, just last week, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
announced plans to spend $500 million over the next 5 years to reduce their NOx emissions by
75% in the region they serve, which includes our home of Tennessee. We believe the personal
attention and commitment given by the Governors should lead to environmental improvements,
health benefits to our citizens, and still allow for continued economic growth.
Mr. President, we believe the proposals made by the states embody the same desired end
result as EPA intended -- a safer, cleaner environment for our children. We encourage you to
carefully consider these proposals as you move towards a final EPA rule, and stand ready to
work with you on this issue.
Sincerely,
Burt Indn
Bart Gordon
Exponyment Ed Bryant
Ander John Tanner John Duncan, Jr.
Be Bob Clement Cleant Zab Zach Wamp Wamp
Harold ORT, 5 VAn Van Hilleary Helleary
Bill Jenkins
Congress of the United States
Washington, DC 20515
WHITE HOUSE HAIL SECTION
1998 SEP -- I PM 2: 57
August 17, 1998
President William J. Clinton
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20500-0006
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing to urge your personal involvement in working out a compromise on
the pending Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ozone regulation that would require
major reductions in nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions in a 22-state region of the eastern
United States.
As you may know, 13 Governors have proposed alternative strategies to EPA's
proposal that would achieve air quality standards at lower costs and avoid disruptions in
electricity supply. The plans advocated by these states contain different elements but have
the same basic approaches. The state proposals represent a major milestone in regional
cooperation by committing utilities and other industry sectors in most of these states to
substantial early NOx reductions that will result in sizable air quality improvements. We
believe the White House should recognize this spirit of cooperation and work with the
Governors to develop a fair and effective plan that meets the environmental and economic
needs of the affected region.
The Governors' proposals are based on careful air quality modeling assessments
and economic analyses performed by the various state environmental agencies. We believe
that the Governors' personal involvement demonstrates a commitment that can and should
lead to an outcome that improves the environment, continues the unprecedented economic
growth that we have enjoyed over the last six years and improves the health of our citizens.
PRINTED ON REC CLED PAPER
President William Clinton -- Page 2
Strong arguments have been advanced that the EPA proposal exceeds the legal
authority provided to it by the Clean Air Act. Contentious litigation is an inevitable
outcome if the EPA proposal is not modified. As Indiana Governor Frank O'Bannon
stated in his June 25 letter to you:
"We are very concerned that wholesale adoption of EPA's original proposal will result
in unnecessary social and economic costs, undercut state efforts, fracture a cooperative
approach, and engender lawsuits and delays, not clean air."
Mr. President, we stand ready to work with you on this issue and arrive at an
outcome that is in the best interests of our nation.
Sincerely,
Ballice
Bezy
Sway Baale
Jahn Angal
John Bechu
President William Clinton -- Page 3
Rick Boucher
H Rahall
Jhy Spur
Sommy Calloben
J Barcia
Owen Packets
pro(in-ons
Dear Hobson
alan Molloha
Army rhe
JOHN
Anne m.horthup
President William Clinton -- Page 4
John Spran
BubRiney
Spaner Bacher
yed Strickland
Ed Whight
I lim Emerson
Stm waver
Earl 7. filliard
David Mclntosh
Mark Sanfol
Mills.Opy
President William Clinton -- Page 5
hm m. Clayton
Howard Cable
Bro CRAMOR
If
RP Bm
Bor diglis
She Myrir
Time Emett
Cass Ballerger
Halt Bether
mine
Rob Portman
President William Clinton -- Page 6
Bellent Bob Hawdy
WilliamSJenhins
WISE
NEY
BAESLER
DINGELL
PAGE 2
BOEHNER
GOODE
BOUCHER
RAHALL
SPENCE
CALLAHAN
BARCIA
PICKETT
BUNNING
TRAFICANT
PAGE 3
HOBSON
MOLLOHAN
GRAHAM
GILLMOR
KASICH
NORTHUP
SPRATT
RILEY
BACHUS
STRICKLAND
CLYBURN
TAYLOR (NC)
WHITFIELD
EMERSON
PAGE 4
CHABOT
ADERHOLT
HILLIARD
McINTOSH
SANFORD
OXLEY
CLAYTON
COBLE
CRAMER
LEVIN
SISISKY
BURR
INGLIS
JONES
PAGE 5
MYRICK
EVERETT
BALLENGER
BATEMAN
McINTYRE
PORTMAN
CLEMENT
ETHERIDGE
JENKINS
PAGE 6
TED STEVENS, ALASKA. CHAIRMAN
THAD COCHRAN MISSISSIPPI
ROBERT C. BYRD. WEST VIRGINIA
ARLEN SPECTER. PENNSYLVANIA
DANIEL K INOUYE. HAWAII
PETE V. DOMENICI. NEW MEXICO
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS. SOUTH CAROLINA
CHRISTOPHER $. BOND. MISSOURI
PATRICK J. LEAHY. VERMONT
SLADE GORTON, WASHINGTON
DALE BUMPERS. ARKANSAS
MITCH McCONNELL KENTUCKY
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG. NEW JERSEY
United States Senate
CONRAD BURNS MONTANA
TOM HARKIN, IOWA
RICHARD SHELBY. ALABAMA
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, MARYLAND
JUDD GREGG NEW HAMPSHIRE
HARRY REID, NEVADA
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
ROBERT F BENNETT. UTAH
HERB KOHL. WISCONSIN
PATTY MURRAY, WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-6025
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL COLORADO
LARRY CRAIG IDAHO
BYRON DORGAN. NORTH DAKOTA
LAUCH FAIROLOTH NORTH CAROLINA
BARBARA BOXER. CALIFORNIA
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON. TEXAS
STEVEN J. CORTESE. STAFF DIRECTOR
JAMES H. ENGLISH, MINORITY STAFF DIRECTOR
June 15, 1998
The Honorable William J. Clinton
President
United States of America
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
I am writing to express our concern about the November 7, 1997, proposal by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions,
and the transport of ozone. This proposed revision to State Implementation Plans calls
for a uniform reduction to 0.15 lb./mmBTU across 22 states, which is equivalent to a
reduction by utility power plants of 85 percent in that region. This reflects the most
extreme and stringent option recommended by the 37 state group that has been studying
this issue, the Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG). Although the EPA has left
it to the states to determine which emission sources will be selected to meet the 0.15 lb.
standard, the EPA is well aware that the proposed reduction is so severe that the
Midwestern states will have little option but to target utilities with the suggested
85-percent reduction, even while Eastern states have not yet effectively controlled their
single greatest contributor to ozone, which is not Midwestern utilities, but rather their
own automobiles. As a result of this kind of action, West Virginia, could face an
overall NOx reduction of 44 percent, with a 72-percent corresponding reduction for our
utilities.
I am concerned that even while the EPA has endorsed the most stringent of the possible
options suggested by OTAG, the EPA has rejected other OTAG proposals that are
aimed at ensuring that the final rule is based upon sound science, and take into
consideration the concerns of individual states. I urge the EPA to reconsider this
approach, particularly in light of the divisive and counter-productive battle over the
ozone and particulate matter rule. As I previously stated in the letter of November 17,
1997, to EPA Administrator Carol Browner, I am surprised that the EPA has again
chosen to pursue a heavy-handed and arbitrary approach toward air regulations.
The Honorable William Jefferson Clinton
June 15, 1998
Page 2
The current "top-down" approach of the EPA, by which it imposes the most stringent
standards possible upon an entire 22-state region, ignores differences between the states,
is neither fair nor equitable, will impose huge costs upon the states, does not allow for
additional modeling, and undermines support for the Clean Air Act. Finally, the EPA
assumes that there will be a system established to trade NOx allowances among the
states that will lower the costs associated with the rule; however, this is unlikely to work
effectively. The NOx controls proposed by the EPA are so severe, and compliance will
be so expensive, that there will be very little incentive to reduce below mandated levels
and create "surplus" credits. Without such credits, there will be nothing to trade.
Recently, several alternative approaches have been suggested by a group of ten
Midwestern and Appalachian governors, led by Governor Cecil Underwood of West
Virginia, as well as by a large group of utilities that have formed the Alliance for
Constructive Air Policy (ACAP). These proposals are based upon the recommendation
of OTAG that additional subregional modeling is needed to better define ozone
transport patterns in the Eastern United States, and that a range of emission-reduction
levels be implemented, tailored to the needs of individual states. These proposals were
developed by discussing the issue with the affected parties, and by building a consensus
that will both reduce the levels of NOx emissions, and maintain support for clean air
standards.
The Governors have indicated that they will propose an alternative to the EPA plan by
August 1998. The utilities have, in the interim, submitted a proposal that would
improve air quality by imposing initial NOx reductions on utilities of 55 percent from
1990 levels, or a reduction in the NOx emission rate to 0.35 lb./mmBTU, whichever is
less stringent, to be completed by 2004. Additional subregional modeling would then
be done, in accordance with the OTAG recommendations. A second round of utility
NOx reductions could then follow, based upon the results of the modeling.
West Virginians are proud of their record with regard to clean air, as we are now in
compliance for ozone. I consider the health of our citizens an important matter,
including the area of air quality. Despite this record, the EPA proposes that West
Virginia reduce its overall NOx emissions by an astounding 44 percent. Such a huge
and dramatic shift in policy - from compliance to gross under-compliance - cannot
be based upon either sound science or any attempt to design a policy based upon
The Honorable William Jefferson Clinton
June 15, 1998
Page 3
discussions with the affected parties. Furthermore, this policy may not even result in
meaningful reductions in ozone levels in the New England states. I urge the EPA to
immediately begin serious discussions with Midwestern states and utilities in an attempt
to design a policy that reduces NOx emissions, is also based on sound science, and is
cost-effective.
With kind regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
Robert Byrd Byrd
RCB:mmj
04/02/98 THU 05:12 FAX
04/01/98 WED 15:40 FAX 202 225 2948
LONG
001
WASHINGTON OFFICE:
BRIAN P. BILBRAY
49TH DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA
1004 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BLDG,
WASHINGTON, BC 20516
(202) Z2G-2040
COMMERCE COMMITTEE
FAX (202) 225-2948
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
DISTRICT OFFICE:
HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
1011 CAMINO DEL RIO SOUTH
SUITE 330
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
Congress of the United States
SAN DIEGO CA 9210g
COMMERCE. TRADE, AND
(819) 291-1430
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
FAX (619) 291-8856-
bouse of Representatives
INTERNET;
E-mail:
Mashington, DC 20515
[email protected]
wond Wide Web:
TO:
LAREY STEIN, ASSISTANT e THE PRESIDENT
FAX NUMBER: 456.6220
FROM: CONCERSION BELAN BILBOAT
DATE: 4/1/98
SUBJECT: HR8 8
NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET)
5
COMMENTS: OBIGINALS FOLLOWING 57 MAIL -
PHONE: (202) 225-2040
FAX: (202) 225-2948
cc Chuck Roger
THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE OF RECYCLED FIBERS
04/02/98 THU 05:12 FAX
04/01/98 WED 15:40 FAX 202 225 2948
002
BRIAN.P. BILBRAY
WASHINGTON OFFICE.
49TH DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA
1530 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BLDG.
WASHINGTON, DC 20515
COMMERCE COMMITTEE
(202) 225-7040
FAX (202) 226-2948
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
DISTRICT OFFICE
HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
1011 CAMINO DEL RIO SOUTH
SUITE 330
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND HAZARDOUS
Congress of the United States
SAN DIEGO, CA 02108
(619) 291-1430
MATERIALS
FAX (612) 291-8958
house of Representatibes
INTERNET.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
OVERSIGHT AND
E-mail:
Mashington, BC 20515
[email protected]
INVESTIGATIONS
March 31, 1998
World Wide Web:
http://wwwwhousa.gov/blhrev/
The Honorable Carol Browner, Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Administrator Browner:
This letter is to inform you of my complete and total displeasure with your office on a matter of
what I would have thought to be mutual interest, and which I have discussed with you directly
and with your staff on a number of occasions. I am very sorry to be nearing the conclusion that
EPA is more interested in political gameplaying than in actually working together to improve air
quality along the U.S.-Mexico border.
As you are well aware, I have introduced bipartisan legislation (H.R. 3961 in the 104th Congress,
and H.R. 8 in the 105th Congress) which would specificically target emissions from these
transborder commuter vehicles by requiring enforcement of existing law. On November 18, 1997,
the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment held a field hearing in San Diego on the topic
of trans-border air pollution, with a specific focus on emissions from gross-polluting foreign
commuter vehicles. EPA's Director of the Air Division for Region IX, David Howekamp,
testified at this hearing that although he thought the goal of the bill was "laudatory", EPA did not
have a position on the bill at that time.
On November 6, 1997, the United States Trade Representative, Charlene Barshevsky, wrote you
a letter following a meeting she had with me. In this letter, she specifically asked you to review
H.R. 8, and stated that her staff was also in the process of reviewing H.R 8. I would assume that
in the spirit of inter-agency cooperation, your office responded to her request. I would like to see
any correspondence which may have been exchanged between your offices on this topic.
On October 1, 1997, you testified before the Commerce Committee on the implementation of the
new NAAQS standards. During one of our exchanges in the question and answer period, I
specifically addressed to you my concerns about the cross-border pollution issue. Earlier, on May
15, 1997, you testified before Committee on your views on the NAAQS issue. Here also, during
one of our exchanges, you and I specifically referenced my interest in the problems which HR 8
would address. On a less formal note, I can think of a handful of occasions during the last two
Congresses where you and I have discussed this issue more informally, and in which you have
assured me of your interest in working with me on my bill to address this problem. In short, Ms.
Administrator, you are well aware that this is an issue of high priority and importance to me.
THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE OF RECYCLED FIBERS
04/01/98 WED 15:40 FAX 202 225 2848
003
Yet I have nothing from you to show for my long-standing efforts to work with EPA on H.R 8.
Last week, EPA was informed that the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment intended to
hold a markup of HR 8 on Tuesday, March 31. On March 26, John Dingell, the ranking
minority member of the Commerce Committee, wrote to you asking for EPA's views on HR 8.
On March 27, Mr. Dingell received a three-page response from Richard Wilson, EPA's Acting
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, which in a rather shrill fashion outlined EPA's
previously unstated rationale for "opposing" HR 8. This letter characterized HR 8 as "punitive
and hostile", and speculated that it would "very likely exacerbate border air pollution rather than
reduce it." Let me here emphasize again that the bill would require the enforcement of
existing law. The letter reads more like a political document, rather than a substantive legislative
analysis; indeed, it provides little, if any, constructive criticism which I would have hoped to use
to help refine the bill as it moves forward.
I find it a little unusual, to say the least, that after months, indeed years, of official silence on this
bill (despite my repeated efforts to engage EPA and you specifically on this matter), EPA
suddenly discovered that it did, after all, have an opinion about HR 8. For the record, this
opinion came not after repeated requests from myself, not after a specific request from the USTR,
and not after being invited to and testifying at a congressional field hearing on this specific topic
It came on a Friday afternoon, within a 24-hour period, at the request of the ranking minority
member. I trust that this newly-established precedent for rapid response to Member requests will
continue to be observed upon future requests of EPA by Members of the Committee.
I am greatly discouraged and extremely unhappy with this sequence of events, as it begs the
question of whether EPA is serious about working in a productive, proactive manner to address
known sources of pollution along the border. Having worked with the Mexican people to
establish air quality programs in Mexico for years before EPA ever thought about an I/M
programs for Juarez, I am well aware of the status of EPA's efforts in Mexico. and am frankly
amazed that EPA would so readily sacrifice public health benefit for political reasons, by attacking
this narrow bill which will clearly improve border air quality by enforcing existing law. I sincerely
hope that the 3/27/98 letter was a product of simple haste and misinformation, or perhaps a policy
"disconnect" within your agency. I cannot believe that this Administration would be so
intractably opposed to improving air quality along the border by simply enforcing existing law.
As the Chairman of the Board of Directors for the San Diego Chapter of the American Lung
Association testified at the November field hearing, "there isn't anything that we can do to that is
too small to clean up the air". H.R. 8 is a means to do just that, in an effective and fair manner. I
intend to continue to work with my colleagues on the Committee and with other interested parties
to strengthen H.R. 8 and move it forward. I fully expect EPA-to participate in this process and to
provide timely input, when it is solicited, to myself or other Members of the Committee.
Sincerely,
Brian Dubray
Member of Congress
cc: The Honorable Michael Bilirakis
The Honorable Sherrod Brown
Charlene Barshevsky, U.S. Trade Representative
Larry Stein, Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs
04/02/98 THU 05:13 FAX
04/01/98 WED 15:41 FAX 202 225 2948
004
WASHINGTON OFFICE:
BRIAN P. BILBRAY
49TH DISTRICT. CALIFORNIA
1530 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BLDG
WASHINGTON, DC 20515
(202) 225-2040
COMMERCE COMMITTEE
FAX (202) 275-2948
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
DISTRICT OFFICE:
HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
1011 CAMINO DEL RIO SOUTH
SUITE 330
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
Congress of the United States
SAN DIEGO. CA S2108
FINANCE AND HAZARDOUS
(619) 201-1430
MATERIALS
FAX (673) 291-8984
house of Representatives
INTERNET
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
E-mail:
OVERSIGHT AND
Washington, BC 20515
[email protected]
INVESTIGATIONS
World Wide Wab:
http://www.hrouse.gov/bilbrag/
March 31, 1998
The Honorable Charlene Barshevsky
Office of the United States Trade Representative
600 17th Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20508
Dear Ms. Barshevsky:
In the late fall of last year, you and I had occasion to discuss a matter of great importance to me
and to my San Diego district, that of mobile source emissions along the border from gross-
polluting Mexican vehicles which commute into the United States. As you know, I have
introduced bipartisan legislation in the last two Congresses (currently H.R. 8) to address this
issue. You were kind enough at that time to ask your staff to review the bill. and to request an
inter-agency response on the bill from the EPA.
In a letter to EPA Administrator Carol Browner, dated November 6, 1997, you requested her
review of HR 8, and stated that you had instructed your own staff to review the bill for "trade
policy implications". In a similar letter to me, dated November 7, 1997, you stated "we will be in
touch with your office in the near future to explore ways, in conjunction with EPA, to help
improve our air pollution strategies along the growing border region." In the nearly five months
which have elapsed since then, I have received no response from either yourself or Administrator
Browner (attached for your information is a copy of a letter which I sent to Administrator
Browner today on this same issue). I would appreciate being provided with any correspondence
between EPA and USTR which may have occurred as a result of your request, and of any review
or analysis of HR 8 by your own staff.
One of the most formidable obstacles faced by those of us who have worked to support expanded
free trade is the all too commonly held perception that free trade comes at the expense of
environmental and public health protections. A great deal of my time in public service, first as a
local official and now as a Member of Congress, has been spent in trying to ensure that these two
important principles do not conflict, or be exploited against the other, but instead operated in a
symbiotic fashion. This is not only possible, it is absolutely essential, both as sound public policy
and to demonstrate to the American public the economic and environmental benefit that can be
derived as a result
THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE OF RECYCLED FIBERS
04/02/98 THU 05:14 FAX
005
04/01/98 WED 15:41 FAX 202 225 2948
It is this rationale which underlies my interest in and commitment to HR 8, which provides an
outstanding opportunity to show how the federal government can promote free trade while
concurrently taking steps to protect the public health and strengthen environmental strategies. As
I have told you previously, it is difficult to understand why the Administration would not seek to
work together with me to implement this bill; after all, the fundamental premise of the bill is to
require that the federal government to participate in enforcing existing law and environmental
strategies. By-showing a lack of commitment to this basic responsibility, this Administration runs
the risk of further undermining the cause of free trade in border regions like San Diego, where
environmental and public health concerns are of a very high priority and are closely linked to free
trade in the eyes of the people I represent.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation and consideration. I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Member Brian Brian of Bilbray Congress P. billy
enclosure
cc: The Honorable Michael Bilirakis
The Honorable Sherrod Brown
Larry Stein, Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs
03/10/99 WED 18:22 FAX
002
000000000000
03/09 '99 15:24 NO. 484 02/04
Renewable Fuels Associate What
RFA
202-289-3835
One Massar buseus Avenue VII'
(F) 202-289-7519
Suite 820
http://www.EdhanolRTA.org
Washington DC. 20001
emal:[email protected]
MEMORANDUM
cc:
To:
John Podesta, White House Chief of Staff
KLAIN
From:
Eric Vaughn
ATTIE
Date:
March 9. 1999
STERN
Subject:
March 17 PNGV Awards
I understand that Vice President Gore is anticipated to take part in the 1998 PNGV Medals
Awards Ceremony, which is being held March 17 at 10:00 a.m. in the Indian Treaty Room.
Secretary Daley and Secretary Richardson are also expected to attend.
The awards honor government/industry teams for their work in demonstrating, for the first time,
the generation of electric power from fuel cells. We have a close working relationship with one
of the awards recipients, Epyx Corporation of Cambridge, Massachusetts. Working with the
Department of Energy, Epyx has designed a fuel cell reformer capable of converting ethanol on-
board the vehicle into hydrogen, which is used to power a fuel cell and generate electricity.
While past public announcements concerning fuel cell and the Epyx reformer have focused on
converting gasoline to hydrogen, ethanol provides higher efficiencies, fewer emissions and better
performance than other fuel sources, including gasoline. Ethanol can and will play an important
role in this new generation of highly efficient, cleaner-burning vehicles.
This is an exciting message waiting to be told, and the Awards Ceremony presents a perfect
opportunity to get this word out to the automotive industry and the public. Such a positive
message of new markets for ethanol will be well-received by the agricultural community which
is suffering from low commodity prices. falling export markets and plunging domestic feed use
of grain.
I have attached a set of talking points on ethanol's role in fuel cells. I greatly appreciate any
assistance you can provide in working this message into the Vice President's comments. Please
call me at 202/289-3835 if you have any questions or need further information.
Rozer 1 Julie-
we should probably
make ethernol Partal
OLDR prtch at ag. only
The Renewable Fuels Association is the national trade association for the domestic ethanol Rep industry
03/10/99 WED 18:23 FAX
1
003
000000000000
03/09 '99 15:25 NO. 484 03/04
Renewable Fuels Association
RFA
202-289-3835
One Massachusetts Avenue, NW
(F) 202-289-7519
Suite 820
Washington, DC 20001
email: [email protected]
March 9, 1999
The Honorable Albert Gore, Jr.
Vice President
Old Executive Office Building
Washington, DC 20501
0000000
Dear Vice President Gore:
As you prepare for the presentation of the 1998 PNGV Medals for excellence in
demonstrating the generation of electric power from fuel cells on March 17, I am writing to make
sure you are aware of an exciting opportunity that exists involving one of the award recipients
and the fuel ethanol industry.
Epyx Corporation of Cambridge, Massachuschts, working with the U.S. Department of
Energy, has designed a fuel cell reformer capable of converting ethanol on-board the vehicle into
hydrogen, which is used to power a fuel cell and generate electricity. The result is a high-
efficiency. low-emission power generation device that offers significant benefits to both
consumers and the environment. According to Epyx CEO Jeff Bentley, cthanol provides higher
efficiencies, fewer emissions and better performance than other fuel sources, including gasoline.
As we look to ethano)'s future role in the transportation sector, new technological
applications such as fuel cell vehicles offer exciting and promising new market opportunities for
ethanol. Furthermore, with commodity prices collapsing, export markets falling, domestic feed
use of grain plunging, and the farm economy in decline as a result, finding new markets for
domestic uses of corn such as that provided by ethanol is increasingly important.
Mr. Vice President, we encourage you to share this exciting news as part of your remarks
at the Awards Ceremony. By entering new markets such as fuel cells, ethanol can expand its
positive contributions to air quality, energy security and rural economic development in the U.S.
Sincerely,
Eisi Vay Eric Vaughn
President
Enclosure
The Renewable Fuels Association is the national trade association for the domestic ethanol industry
03/10/99 WED 18:23 FAX
1
004
000000000000
03/09 '99 15:25 NO. 484 04/04
Talking Points on Ethanol's Use in Fuel Cell Reformer
Coupling a domestic, renewable energy source - cthanol . with highly efficiency, low
emitting fuel cell technology will dramatically improve the next generation of vehicles.
Ethanol is easily one of the most desirable hydrogen sources for fuel cell vehicles.
Ethanol provides higher efficiencies, fewer emissions and better performance than other
fuel sources, including gasoline, in the Epyx fuel cell reformer.
Fuel cell vehicles are capable of achieving up to 80 miles per gallon with near zcro
exhaust emissions, improving air quality while reducing fossil energy use.
As ethanol is marketed in nearly every state, the fuel infrastructure exists and could be
easily tapped into to provide the fuel for fuel cell vehicles.
Developing new uscs and markets for ethanol will continue to reduce our reliance on
imported energy and increase our national energy security.
Nearly one-third of carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. are generated by the production
and use of fuel for transportation. Because ethanol is renewable, it is the only
transportation fuel that helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions, by as much as 46 percent
compared to conventional gasoline.
Finding new markets for domestic uses of corn such as that provided by ethanol is
increasingly important in today's agricultural economy, with commodity prices
collapsing, export markets falling, domestic feed use of grain plunging, and the farm
economy in decline as a result. Ethanol's use in fuel cells promises substantial rural
economic development and growth
Rosina M. Bierbaum
03/24/99 11:54:28 AM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Duncan T. Moore/OSTP/EOP, Henry C. Kelly/OSTP/EOP, Linda Lance/CEQ/EOP
CC:
Martha L. Wofford/WHCCTF/EOP, Roger S. Ballentine/WHO/EOP, Julie M. Anderson/WHCCTF/EOP,
Anthony J. Gibson/OSTP/EOP
Subject: UCS petition on CAFE stds
in case you haven't seen this
jball @ ucsusa.org
03/24/99 09:54:04 AM
Record Type:
Record
To:
UCS_LIST @ ucsusa.org
CC:
Subject: UCS Action Alert
March 23, 1999
*** UCS ACTION ALERT
***
TO: UCS Activists
FROM: Michelle Robinson, Senior Transportation Advocate and
Jim Ball, Climate Change Policy Coordinator
RE: Immediate Action on SUV's and Global Warming
ISSUE: Gas guzzling cars and light trucks are responsible
for up to 25% of US carbon dioxide emissions, the major
global warming pollutant. The more fuel vehicles use the
more carbon dioxide is pumped into the atmosphere. Despite
advances in technology, the fuel economy (miles per gallon)
continues to decline in today's most popular vehicle models
and fuel economy standards have not been updated by
Congress or the Department of Transportation since the mid
1980s.
Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Slade Gorton (R-WA), and
Richard Bryan (D-NV) are trying to stop this disturbing
trend by advocating for improved fuel economy standards.
They are sending a letter to President Clinton asking him
to work with Congress to increase these standards. If a
substantial number of Senators sign this letter to the
President, it will be an impressive show of support and
demonstrate their willingness to stand up to the auto
industry to provide the public the opportunity to choose
cleaner, more fuel efficient cars.
ACTION: To update the standards, both the President and the
Senate will have to stand firm in opposition to the "CAFE-
freeze rider." Getting 35 Senators to sign this letter to
the President is a critical first step.
Senators Feinstein, Bryan, and Gorton have sent their
letter to other offices encouraging them to sign on.
Please contact your Senator's office (see list below)
through the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask
her/him to sign the letter urging the President to increase
CAFE standards. If the Senator's aide on transportation
issues says that they have not received the letter or would
like more information they should contact Kathy Reich in
Senator Feinstein's office at (202) 224-3841.
BACKGROUND: In 1975, Congress passed mandatory miles per
gallon standards also known as Corporate Average Fuel
Economy or CAFE Standards. Currently, all passenger cars
are required to average 27.5 miles per gallon and vehicles
in the "light trucks" category (SUVs, minivans, and
pickups) are supposed to average 20.5 miles per gallon.
The lower standards for light trucks were based on the fact
that many more of them were used for hauling and work
purposes and they comprised less than 20% of the car
market. Today, with these vehicles now over 50% of all cars
sold - the auto industry is in danger of violating these
standards with serious environmental consequences. Compared
to an average 27.5 mpg car, whose tailpipe emits 38 tons of
carbon dioxide over its lifetime, a 14 mpg SUV will emit 70
tons of carbon dioxide.
The current CAFE standards save more than three million
barrels of oil per day, and save the owner of the average
new car $3,000 at the gas pump over the lifetime of the
vehicle. Improved standards will reduce the air pollution
that leads to global warming, smog, and lung disease;
reduce our dependence on imported oil; and save consumers
money.
The auto industry has succeeded in freezing CAFE standards
by having allies in Congress insert language in the annual
Department of Transportation (DOT) Appropriations Bill that
keeps the agency from increasing the standards. This
language referred to as the "CAFE -freeze rider" has been
added to the appropriations bill for the last four years
and is likely to be attached again this year.
THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO DO THIS - IT MAY BE OUR
BEST CHANCE THIS YEAR TO PUSH THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS
FOR COMMON SENSE ACTION THAT WILL HELP CURB GLOBAL WARMING
WHILE BENEFITTING CONSUMERS.
If you have any questions or would like additional
information contact Michelle Robinson at 617-547-5552. If
you have a moment to let us know that you contacted your
Senators, we would very much appreciate it - you can send a
message to [email protected].
You can find specific contact information for your
Senator's office at: www.vote-smart.org
The following Senators have already signed the letter -
please thank them for taking this responsible position:
CA D Barbara Boxer
NV D Richard Bryan
CT D Christopher J. Dodd
CA D Dianne Feinstein
WA R Slade Gorton
SC D Ernest Hollings
MA D John F. Kerry
NJ D Frank Lautenberg
NY D Daniel Patrick Moynihan
CT D Joseph Lieberman
RI D Jack Reed
NJ D Robert Torricelli
WA D Patty Murray
MN D Paul Wellstone
The following Senators should be contacted regarding
signing the letter to the President:
HI D Daniel K. Akaka
MT D Max Baucus
DE D Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
NM D Jeff Bingaman
DE D Joseph Biden
CA D Barbara Boxer
CO R Ben Nighthorse Campbell
RI R John H. Chafee
GA D Max Cleland
ME R Susan M. Collins
ND D Kent Conrad
GA R Paul Coverdell
SD D Tom Daschle
NM R Pete Domenici
ND D Byron L. Dorgan
IL D Richard J. Durbin
NC D John Edwards
WI D Russell D. Feingold
FL D Bob Graham
IA R Charles Grassley
NH R Judd Gregg
IA D Tom Harkin
HI D Daniel K. Inouye
VT R James M. Jeffords
SD D Tim Johnson
NE D J. Robert Kerrey
WI D Herb Kohl
LA D Mary L. Landrieu
VT D Patrick J. Leahy
CT D Joseph I. Lieberman
AR D Blanche L. Lincoln
IN R Richard Lugar
FL R Connie Mack
AZ R John McCain
NV D Harry Reid
VA D Charles S. Robb
OR R Gordon Smith
WV D John D. Rockefeller, IV
DE R William Roth, Jr.
MD D Paul S. Sarbanes
NY D Charles E. Schumer
ME R Olympia J. Snowe
AL R Ted Stevens
VA R John Warner
OR D Ron Wyden
GM concept vehicle gets 108 miles to a gallon - 1/11/00
http://www.detnews.com/2000/autoshow/0001/11/01120027.hm
Cars.com
new
Technology
Register
ADVERTISING
Classifieds
Personals
JobHunter
Homes/Apts.
The Detroit News Special Section Sunday January 30. 2000
Place an ad
Share this story with- friend P Jointhe Autos discussion Feedback
detnews
Tuesday, January 11, 2000
The Detroll News
.com
HOME PAGE
Auto Show 2000
INDEX
Essentials
Search
Highlights
CyberSurveys
News Talk
GM concept vehicle gets 108
Sports Talk
Wings Talk
Gear Talk
miles to a gallon
Horoscope
Hot Sites
Lottery
Weather
Staff
News
Autos
Joyrides
Business
Careers
Editorials
Metro/State
Livingston
Macomb
Oakland
Wayne
On Detroit
Millennium
Nation/World
The new Precept concept vehicle runs on hydrogen in
Obituaries
a solid state.
Death Notices
Schools
Technology
Voices
Detroit News staff and Bloomberg News
Sports
Sports Front
Lions
DETROIT - General Motors Corp. surprised the press Tuesday at
Pistons
Shock
the North American International Auto Show by driving out a new
Tigers
concept car which gets the equivalent 108 miles to the gallon.
Red Wings
College Sports
The GM Precept FCEV, looks likes GM's original the Precept
U-M
conceptt, but instead of the 80 miles per gallon and diesel and electric
MSU
State Colleges
power plant, the new concept substitutes a fuel cell for the diesel. The
High Schools
impressive car admits zero emissions. It will produce only water and
Motor Sports
Golf
heat. It runs on hydrogen in a solid state.
Scoreboards
It's extremely aerodynamic with no door handles, no outside antenna
or outside mirrors. Instead the car uses television cameras to give the
Features
Features Front
driver a view of the side and rear.
Entertainment
It has electronic controls to open the doors.
Casino Guide
Movie Finder
The Precept has mesh seats to lighten the load. The body is made
Ford t 6M Hybrids
from Detroit Auto
show.
1 of2
1/18/2000 4:20 PM
GM concept vehicle gets 108 miles to a gallon - 1/11/00
http://www.detnews.com/2000/autoshov/0001/11/01120027.htm
TV Listings
out of aluminum and titanium to reduce weight.
Detroit History
Food
The five-passenger car can travel 500 miles before its hydrogen
Health
tanks need to be refueled, accelerate from zero to 60 mph in nine
Homestyle
Next!
seconds and start in temperatures below zero Fahrenheit, GM said.
Religion
Automakers are under increasing pressure by government regulators
Wine Report
to cut pollutant emissions and boost fuel economy. Fuel cells, which
Advertising
create heat and water as byproducts, burn cleaner than other types of
Cars.com
power technology such as the internalcombustion engine.
Classifieds
Personals
"Hydrogen will be the fuel of the future," said Larry Burns, GM's
JobHunter
vice president of research and development.
Homes/Apts.
Place an ad
Fuel cells now offer the most promise in meeting California's
Home delivery
requirement that by 2003, at least 10 percent of each maker's vehicles
sold in the U.S. state produce no air pollution. On Sunday, Ballard
Power Systems Inc. of Vancouver, British Columbia, said it will build
a $350 million plant in two years to produce fuel cells for as many as
300,000 vehicles a year.
GM has bought fuel-cell prototypes from Ballard, though it
developed the cells used in the Precept FCEV on its own.
Copyright 2000, The Detroit News
The Detroit News
Comments?
INDEX
2 of 2
1/18/2000 4:20 PM
Ford Prodigy, GM Precept
http://www.auto.com/2000autoshow/stories/pngv13_20000113.htm
Auto
AME RICAN
NORTH International Auto Show 2000
.cam
STORIES PHOTOS IF YOU'RE GOING
A DAILY PUBLICATION
OF THE
TOP STORIES
DETROIT FREE PRESS
NEWS
DaimlerChrysler
sets up
e-business unit
Today's stories
Ford sees
Latest headlines
sustained record
earnings
UAW Talks '99
GM's top
Traverse City '99
executive for
sales to retire
Industry
Half of
automotive
Consumer
supply costs can
be cut says
Stock updates
panel
Racing
Ford's concept, the Prodigy, runs with both an
internal-combustion engine and a battery-powered
Melling: Getting
back up to
REVIEWS
electric motor.
speed
Stacked decks
By model
Ford Prodigy, GM Precept
More headlines
Most popular
from Reuters
Vehicle specs
January 13, 2000
AUTO SHOWS
Ford Motor Co. and
Show index
General Motors Corp. are
RELATED
showing off concept cars
CONTENT
2000 LA show
equipped with hybrid
More briefs on
2000 Detroit show
power trains that achieve 70
concept and
to 80 miles per gallon.
production
SERVICES
vehicles.
Kelley Blue Book
The so-called supercars
were developed under a program called the
Buy a car
Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles
Forums
(PNGV). The federal government provided some
support and encouraged Ford, GM and Chrysler
Links
Corp. (now DaimlerChrysler AG) to collaborate
Search
on the basic science.
Handheld edition
Ford's concept, the Prodigy, runs with both an
internal-combustion engine and a
battery-powered electric motor. It gets about 70
Check out
miles per gallon with gasoline and 80 miles with
diesel fuel. The battery is recharged by an
Michigan
alternator and by capturing energy created while
JobHunter
braking.
Any Time
GM's concept is called the Precept and operates
with a diesel engine and electric motor. Like the
Prodigy, it uses a lot of light-weight plastics and
aluminum and is very aerodynamic, with little
cameras replacing rearview mirrors to help
1 of 2
1/19/2000 1:01 PM
Ford Prodigy, GM Precept
http://www.auto.com/2000autoshow/stories/pngv13_20000113.htm
reduce drag.
GM actually is showing two
Precepts. The second is
powered by a fuel cell, an
even more advanced system
using hydrogen fuel to
generate power for an electric
GM Precept
motor. Emissions are virtually zero, with water
being the primary byproduct.
Both Ford and GM say their supercars are roomy
enough to serve as comfortable midsize family
cars. DaimlerChrysler's high-mileage concept
car is scheduled to be unveiled later this year.
Engineers generally agree that affordable fuel
cells still are several years away. There's also the
large question of a supply system for hydrogen.
The PNGV program is scheduled to run four
more years, culminating with Ford, GM and
DaimlerChrysler introducing preproduction cars
in 2004.
All content © copyright 2000 Knight Ridder Inc. and may
not be republished without permission.
2 of 2
1/19/2000 1:01 PM
Ford unleashes electric car - 1/11/00
http://www.detnews.com/2000/concepts/0001/18/01110057.htm
Cars.com
CLICK HERE
RIGHT
WAY
cars.com
ADVERTISING
Classifieds
Personals
STEP
THIS
JobHunter
Homes/Apts.
Place an ad
Share this story with a friend
Join the Autos discussion in Feedback
detnews
Tuesday, January 11, 2000
The Detroit News
.com
Auto Show 2000
INDEX
HOME PAGE
Essentials
Search
Highlights
CyberSurveys
News Talk
Ford unleashes electric car
Sports Talk
Wings Talk
Gear Talk
No. 2 carmaker plays catch up with Japan with Think brand
Horoscope
Hot Sites
Lottery
Weather
Staff
News
Autos
Joyrides
Business
Careers
Editorials
Metro/State
Livingston
Macomb
Oakland
Wayne
On Detroit
Millennium
Nation/World
Obituaries
Death Notices
Charles V. Tines 7 The Detroit News
Schools
Technology
Ford's Jacques Nasser shows off the new Think
Voices
brand, an electric urban car with a 55-mile driving
range. The line includes a golf cart-type vehicle and
Sports
two bicycles.
Sports Front
Lions
Pistons
Shock
By Dina ElBoghdady and Mark Truby / The Detroit News
Tigers
Red Wings
College Sports
U-M
MSU
DETROIT -- Ford Motor Co. offered a partial answer Monday to
State Colleges
critics who say Detroit lags behind its Japanese rivals when it comes to
High Schools
Motor Sports
putting cleaner vehicles on the road.
Golf
In a press conference at the North American International Auto
Scoreboards
Show, the world's No. 2 automaker said it was creating the Think
Features
brand to sell a range of small electric vehicles and bikes in the United
Features Front
States and elsewhere.
Entertainment
The new line initially will include an electric urban car with a
Casino Guide
Movie Finder
55-mile driving range, a golf cart-type electric vehicle with a top speed
TV Listings
Detroit History
of 25 mph for use in resort areas or closed communities, and two
Food
bicycles that offer electric power at the flick of a switch.
Health
Homestyle
Ford hopes to apply this technology to creating pollution-free fuel
Next!
cell vehicles that are powered by electricity generated from the
Religion
Wine Report
combination of hydrogen and oxygen.
The company also rolled out the Prodigy, a hybrid diesel and
Advertising
electric family sedan that gets 80 miles per gallon using research
Cars.com
developed through a partnership between automakers and the federal
Classifieds
Personals
government.
JobHunter
'Delivering mass production alternatives to the internal combustion
1 of 2
1/18/2000 4:29 PM
Ford unleashes electric car - 1/11/00
http://www.detnews.com/2000/concepts/0001/18/01110057.hm
JobHunter
"Delivering mass production alternatives to the internal combustion
Homes/Apts.
Place an ad
engine is a marathon, but I believe the finish line is finally coming into
Home delivery
view," said Ford Chairman Bill Ford Jr. "But as fast as we are making
it happen, it will be several years before we see significant amounts of
vehicles powered by anything other than internal combustion engines."
Environmentalists say it shouldn't take that long given that the
Japanese already plan to offer fuel-efficient hybrid vehicles in the U.S.
market this year. The Toyota Prius, which gets 55 miles per gallon, is
already sold in Japan and will be introduced to U.S. drivers later this
year. The 70-mpg Honda Insight hybrid went on sale in U.S.
showrooms in December.
"I'm tired of them (automakers) saying Americans won't buy these
vehicles," said Lana Pollack, president of the Michigan Environmental
Council. "Detroit introduces some clean technology in other countries.
When will they bring it to this country?"
Domestic automakers dismiss the Japanese hybrids as marketing
gimmicks that are too small for American tastes, too expensive to
market on a mass scale, and too focused on fuel efficiency at a time
when gas comes as cheap as bottled water in the United States.
Environmental gains will come only if these vehicles can be sold in
high volume at a reasonable cost, said Neil Ressler, Ford's
vice-president for research and vehicle technology.
"We can go make one of those little, ultra-low volume,
not-going-anywhere types of vehicles and we just decided not to do it,"
Ressler said. "We need to produce volumes high enough to make a big
enough difference to the environment."
Toyota Motor Corp. officials say the only way to create volume is
by putting these vehicles on the road, exposing consumers to the
products, and learning from the experience. The company expects the
size of the Prius will appeal to Americans because its somewhere
between a Camry and a Corolla.
"Last time I checked, we sold over 220,000 Corollas and more than
250,000 Camrys," Amstock said. "We're going to learn from this
experience and we're going to proliferate the technology to other
platforms."
Copyright 2000, The Detroit News
The Detrolt News
Comments?
INDEX
2 of 2
1/18/2000 4:29 PM
Ford Motor Company - Cleaner Vehicles
http://www.ford.com/defaultasp?pageid=70&storyid=625
Ford Motor Company,
VOLVO
mazos
LINCOLN
Ford
Mercury
JAGUAR
USA 1 18 2000
BUYER CONNECTION OWNER CONBECTION
FORD.COM
INSIDE THE COMPANY
Better Ideas
ENVIRO-PLEDGE
Better Ideas
ENVIRONMENT
Design & Technology
Safety & Security
Environment
New Ford hybrid electric car tops 70 mpg
Corporate Citizenship
Cleaner Vehicles
DETROIT - The new Ford Prodigy is a hybrid electric family car prototype
Policies
able to achieve more than 70 miles per gallon fuel economy. The
Cleaner
lightweight, aerodynamic and fuel-efficient Prodigy - which will be unveiled
Manufacturing
at the North American International Auto Show - demonstrates Ford's
Recycling
progress in developing a hybrid electric family vehicle with mass appeal.
Community
Involvement
"Prodigy goes a long way toward
Looking into
meeting our goal of an extremely
the Future
fuel-efficient family vehicle," says
Henry Ford
Neil Ressler, vice-president -
Conservation
Research and Vehicle
Awards
Technology and the company's
1998 Report
chief technical officer. "The
vehicle represents an interim
stage between our P2000
research programs and our plans
for an affordable, production
The new Ford Prodigy prototype is capable of
hybrid."
achieving up to 70 miles per gallon.
The stylish, roomy Prodigy is
designed to be stingy on fuel without sacrificing customer appeal in areas
such as performance, affordability and roominess. The sedan is built on a
lightweight platform, features a modern, aerodynamic design and is
powered by a low storage requirement (LSR) hybrid electric powertrain.
The Ford Prodigy features an aerodynamic design that enhances vehicle
aesthetics while reducing air resistance. Prodigy's 0.199 coefficient of drag
Partnering
- a measure of air resistance - is a 33-percent improvement compared with
to Protect
prior versions of the vehicle. Such a major improvement helps improve the
vehicle's fuel economy by 4 miles per gallon.
the Planet
To enhance the vehicle's aerodynamics, side-mounted cameras and
FORD AND EARTH'S 911
onboard monitors are used in place of conventional side-view mirrors. The
cameras provide a needed side view for the driver while not hindering
air-flow around the vehicle.
Variable ride height, grille shutters and shields under the car also add to the
vehicle's aerodynamic improvement.
Prodigy's platform is based on Ford's extensive lightweight materials
research. Prodigy's total weight is 2,387 pounds, which is about 1,000
pounds lighter today's family sedan.
The significant weight reduction was achieved without sacrificing package
efficiency. Prodigy is 30-percent lighter than today's Taurus sedan, but -
thanks to creative packaging and lightweight materials - passenger space
and luggage capacity are the same.
Prodigy's low storage requirement hybrid electric propulsion system uses
an aluminum DIATA (Direct Injection, Aluminum Through Bolt Assembly)
engine, starter/alternator, automatically shifted manual transmission and
high-power battery.
1 of 2
1/18/2000 4:41 PM
Ford Motor Company - Press Room
http://www.ford.com/default.asp?pageid=106&storyid=201
Ford Company
VOLVO
mazos
LINCOLN
Ford
Mercury
JAGUAR
USA 1 18 2000
BUYER CONNECTION
OWNER CONBECTION
FORD.COM
OUR PRODUCTS
Inside the Company
FOR OWNERS
NEWS ROOM
INSIDE THE COMPANY
News Room
WORLDWIDE LINKS
Ford Hybrid Electric Vehicle is on Horizon
DETROIT, Jan. 6, 1999 -- Ford Motor Company research engineers are
developing an extremely fuel-efficient, product-feasible hybrid electric
vehicle that is less complex and lighter than hybrids other automakers
have demonstrated.
The hybrid powertrain is one of two being developed for Ford's P2000
Prodigy research vehicle, a five-passenger aluminum-bodied sedan that
will be extremely light and aerodynamic.
Visitors to the 1999 North American International Auto Show in Detroit can
preview Ford's progress in developing this customer-friendly hybrid vehicle
at a dramatic new display of the vehicle's key components. The exhibit
focuses on Ford's "low storage requirement" (LSR) hybrid, a candidate for
the company's first mass production hybrid electric vehicle.
CLICK HERE
TO SEE A
SNEAK
"The LSR hybrid is a high-value hybrid alternative," said Wayne Johnson,
PREVIEW
manager, Vehicle Electronic Systems. "It is simple, yet extremely fuel
efficient, because we took a systems approach to optimize fuel economy.
"The LSR hybrid's total package -- DIATA engine, starter/alternator,
automatically shifted manual transmission and high-power battery --
represents a promising approach for vehicles with breakthrough fuel
efficiency."
The fuel economy of hybrid electric vehicles in city driving can be
enhanced four ways:
The fuel to the engine can be turned off when no propulsion power
is needed (for example, when coasting down a hill or when stopped
at a traffic light) and the engine restarted instantly on demand.
The engine size can be decreased to improve efficiency, with
electric power used to augment power demand when necessary.
Regenerative braking can be used to recapture and re-use energy
that otherwise would be lost to heat when braking. The alternator
transforms this braking energy into electrical energy, which is stored
in the battery for later use.
Electric propulsion can be used with the engine off. (To maximize
value, the LSR does not include this feature.)
Ford researchers determined that a hybrid with the first three capabilities
could deliver fuel economy equivalent to a more complex and heavier
hybrid with all four capabilities. In fact, they found that the LSR design
required only very modest energy storage -- less than that of a
conventional starter battery. Thus, LSR improves cost and reduces
complexity.
Ford's LSR hybrid replaces the flywheel, starter and alternator with a single
electric motor -- the starter/alternator - packaged between the
transmission and the engine.
In combination with a small, high-power nickel metal hydride battery and
power electronics module, the starter/alternator can restart the engine in
less than 0.2 second -- literally the blink of an eye.
1 of 2
1/18/2000 4:37 PM
Ford Motor Company - Press Room
http://www.ford.com/default.asp?pageid=106&estoryid=201
It can generate the power for the vehicle electronic systems with 85
percent efficiency compared with less than 60 percent for a conventional
system. And it can assist the engine as the vehicle accelerates and
support the brakes during deceleration, thus-recharging the battery for later
use.
The starter/alternator module regulates the flow of electricity between the
battery and the starter/alternator. It determines the precise amount of
energy exchange using a variety of inputs, including accelerator and brake
pedals. Battery voltages range up to 400 volts, with a peak current rating of
200 amps for 20 seconds and a continuous power rating of 25 kilowatts.
The LSR hybrid relies on an automatically shifted manual transmission that
combines the operating ease of an automatic transmission with the
efficiency of a manual transmission and is 20 percent more efficient than a
comparable automatic transmission.
In Auto Shift Manual mode, the transmission shifts gears without driver
input, similar to an automatic transmission. In Select Shift Manual mode,
the driver controls the shift timing, while the automatic controls handle the
shifting and clutch actuation, which eliminates the clutch pedal.
The latest-generation HEV is equipped with Ford's state-of-the-art,
aluminum DIATA engine. The 1.2-liter compression-ignition, direct-injection
engine is lighter and 35 percent more efficient than conventional engines.
The four-cylinder DIATA generates 55 kilowatts, or 74 horsepower, at
4,100 rpm.
"Applying an integrated systems approach to the development of the HEV
powertrain allowed us to use advanced technology, including the DIATA,
that provides improved fuel economy and reduced emissions," Johnson
said. "Although an LSR hybrid is simpler, lighter, smaller and less costly
than other hybrid vehicles, it can supply the performance that customers
expect from a Ford."
The LSR hybrid is being developed as part of Ford's participation in the
Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV), a collaboration
among Ford, General Motors, DaimlerChrysler AG, the U.S. Department of
Energy and others.
HERTZ
SEARCH
Convenience. Comfort.
Control...Exactly
2 of2
1/18/2000 4:37 PM
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a publication.
Publications have not been scanned in their entirety for the purpose
of digitization. To see the full publication please search online or
visit the Clinton Presidential Library's Research Room.