Over the objections of the auto industry, California's Air Resources Board (CARB) Jan. 27 approved landmark new auto emissions standards that include a first-time limit on particulate matter (PM) that goes beyond what is expected in EPA's increasingly controversial “Tier III” fuel and vehicle rule, which is slated for release later this Spring.
Over the objections of the auto industry, California's Air Resources Board (CARB) Jan. 27 approved landmark new auto emissions standards that include a first-time limit on particulate matter (PM) that goes beyond what is expected in EPA's increasingly controversial “Tier III” fuel and vehicle rule, which is slated for release later this Spring.
While the board rejected industry efforts to remove the PM provision, it agreed to review the provision's technical feasibility sooner than what had originally been proposed.
The board also rejected efforts by the auto industry to strip a controversial system for easing compliance with the state's zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) mandate for those companies that “overcomply” with EPA's greenhouse gas (GHG) standards.
Meanwhile, oil companies are threatening to sue state regulators for approving a provision requiring them to install hydrogen fueling pumps at certain gas stations when a specified number of fuel-cell vehicles are expected to be on the road in the state.
The “advanced clean cars” regulations the board approved include GHG emission standards for 2017-2025 model-year vehicles that harmonize with EPA's GHG and corporate average fuel economy standards announced late last year by EPA and the Department of Transportation (DOT); more aggressive ZEV requirements than current state rules; tighter low-emission vehicle (LEV III) standards that cover several pollutants, including PM; and a "clean fuels outlet" regulation, which requires the installation of hydrogen fueling pumps at stations under certain conditions.
CARB made tweaks to several of the rules before adopting the regulatory package, which are outlined in a Jan. 26 staff presentation.
One of the more controversial aspects of the LEV III rules -- which cover model-year vehicles 2015-2025 -- is a requirement that automakers meet a 1 milligram per mile (mg/mile) PM emission limit by 2025. Auto industry representatives said 1 mg/mile cannot be measured and is technically infeasible to meet, adding that their implementation of advanced engine technologies to reduce GHG emissions -- such as gas-direct injection -- actually raises PM emissions. In addition, auto industry representatives complained that this CARB provision conflicts with pending EPA “Tier III” auto and fuel emission standards, because EPA is not considering such a PM standard at this time.
While CARB members agreed to change the regulation to require staff to conduct a technical feasibility review of the PM standards in 2015 -- two years earlier than previously proposed -- they rejected industry calls to relax the standard. They also defended the PM standard despite its inconsistency with the planned EPA Tier III rules, saying that in certain areas California must insist on tighter provisions.
Auto company officials also urged CARB to ensure that its regulations are “harmonized” with EPA's Tier III federal standards, which the federal agency is slated to unveil in March. The rule has raised concerns over potential gasoline price impacts though a top EPA official recently downplayed concerns the rule will boost prices.
Steven Douglas, representing the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said during the Jan. 26 portion of the CARB hearing that it will be difficult to ensure vehicles sold in California and across the country can all meet one set of criteria emission requirements -- including standards, test procedures, fleet averages and certification provisions -- while EPA's rules are not yet proposed and not yet officially harmonized with California's LEV III rules.
CARB members also declined to change a controversial provision in the regulations that will grant extra credits to auto companies that “overcomply” with their federal GHG emission obligations in the 2018-2021 model-year time frame. American auto companies strenuously objected to this provision, claiming that only two or three companies -- Honda, Hyundai and possibly Nissan -- will be able to take advantage, resulting in a competitive disadvantage for domestic auto companies.
ZEV Credits
Other issues also drew industry criticism. Reg Modlin, representing Chrysler, testified during CARB's meeting that the GHG overcompliance credit could result in 350,000 fewer ZEVs being produced in the four-year time period covered under the credit provision, which would seem to clash with the purpose of the ZEV mandate. He added that it would unfairly lower the cost of compliance with the regulation for those few car companies that do seek the credit, and would “slow market acceptance of electric-drive vehicles.”
But CARB staffers responded initially during the meeting they believed the number of ZEVs that may not be produced in the 2018-2021 time frame is closer to 30,000; however, later in the meeting staff acknowledged that taking into account the 10 other states that also carry out CARB's ZEV regulation, that figure is closer to 160,000 and could be higher.
CARB Chairwoman Mary Nichols said during a press conference call following the Jan. 27 board meeting that CARB believes the credit is a “valuable piece of the overall package” that will maintain substantial GHG emission reductions because automakers will still have to offer for sale very low-emission vehicles, even if they are not pure ZEVs, in the time frame covered by the credit.
Meanwhile, oil industry representatives said they are likely to sue CARB over the “clean fuels outlet” regulation, which requires oil companies or other fuel providers to install hydrogen fueling pumps at a certain number of gas stations when 10,000 fuel-cell vehicles are expected to be on the road on a regional basis, or when 20,000 fuel-cell vehicles are expected on the road statewide.
Representatives of the Western States Petroleum Association claim the regulation may violate several state laws, including the California Environmental Quality Act, Administrative Procedure Act and the constitution regarding taxes and fees.
The rule does contain a provision that if CARB can reach a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with the oil industry and other stakeholders to build a certain number of hydrogen stations in the coming years, the regulation would be shelved. However, sources and Nichols indicate that the MOA will be difficult to finalize by the time the regulation would take effect.
“The petroleum industry wants to see whether they can come up with funds to provide hydrogen and stations without them having to actually pay for it,” Nichols said during the Jan. 27 press conference call. “And we're fine with that concept and happy to work with them on it. But, as yet, they haven't come up with a mechanism for making that happen.” -- Curt Barry