Greens raise red flag over possible delays in diesel fuel, emissions limits

Diesel Fuel News, July 22, 2002 by Jack Peckham

Washington, DC -- Environmental/health advocacy groups and state/local air pollution regulators fear that the latest push by Caterpillar and American Trucking Associations (ATA) to delay the October 2002 deadline for U.S. lower-emissions highway diesels could be the opening shot in another war to delay all clean-diesel regulations this decade.

At a joint press conference here, Clean Air Trust executive director Frank O'Donnell termed the Cat/ATA lobbying for a one-year compliance delay as an "axle of evil," mocking a President Bush phrase about terrorists.

"The entire effort to clean up diesel trucks is under a cloud," O'Donnell said. "There's a concern that the effects [of the Cat/ATA lobbying effort] could go well beyond the October deadline."

Reason: ATA and member companies are also challenging the related 2004 emissions deadlines for the non-consent-decree engine makers. If that deadline were to be pushed back along with a delay on the October deadline, then perhaps EPA's 2007 ultra-clean diesel deadlines also could be pushed back, along with the mid-2006 deadlines for refiners to supply ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULD).

Similar delays potentially could spill over into the upcoming EPA non-road "Tier 4" diesel rules, which could include emissions trading and possibly sulfur credits trading between highway and non-road diesel limits, also opposed by the greens.

A cascade of delays could be disastrous for air quality and public health, the greens and state air regulators warn.

Nor can Cat be trusted for its offer to "pay back" any excess emissions during the one-year delay. "It's disingenuous to not meet your commitment [to meet the 2.5-gram NOx limits by October] and then say, 'trust us next time,"' international air quality regulatory consultant Mike Walsh (former EPA mobile source director) added here.

Cat's response: "We're prepared to meet every term of the consent decree. We've offered to work with EPA on an emissions payback mechanism," Cat spokesman Carl Volz told us.

In a letter to President Bush, the state/local regulators (STAPPA/ALAPCO) point out that Cummins has already certified one engine family meeting the October limits, while other engine makers are "close to" submitting certifications. Letting Cat off the hook would be unfair to all the companies that comply, and a delay would unfairly reward "the engine manufacturers who broke the law and degraded our air quality" by using so-called "defeat devices" that ultimately prompted the consent decrees and the October deadline, STAPPA said.

Meantime, Cat's lawsuit (see Diesel Fuel News 4/15/02, p1) challenging EPA's certification of the October-complying Cummins engine is another threat to cleaning-up diesel, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said here.

The October limits are a "first step to successfully implementing the 2007 diesel rule," NRDC said. Along with American Lung Association, Clean Air Trust, US PIRG and STAPPA/ALAPCO, the NRDC is urging that EPA adopt the same ULSD deadline and equivalent emissions standards for non-road diesels starting in 2007.

"Cat made two gambles: One, that other companies would follow them [in fighting the 2.5-grams NOx deadline] and two, that EPA would set non-compliance penalties low enough," NRDC's "dump dirty diesel" campaign director Rich Kassel said. "They lost the gamble, because Cummins is ready, and EPA came out with proposed NCPs that are high enough" to foil the bet, he said.

* DOJ: Cat's Delay Won't Work

Separately, U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) contends in a consent-decree court briefing filed June 18 on behalf of EPA that Cat's proposed one-year delay won't fix anything.

Even today's truck "pre-buying" (ahead of October) will likely produce air quality benefits if very old trucks are replaced by relatively low-emissions 2002 trucks, DOJ points out. But extending the October deadline would only delay even greater air quality gains, rather than stop "pre-buying," the Justice attorneys say.

DOJ also claims that Truck Renting and Leasing Association (now accounting for 40% of U.S. truck purchases) indicates that TRALA members will replace old trucks with new trucks "when current lease terms expire," no matter the higher cost of EGR-equipped engines. However, TRALA angrily denied this DOJ claim in a June 27 letter response to EPA.

"TRALA representatives did not make, nor would we have the knowledge to make, such a representation on behalf of the entire industry," TRALA said.

* New Cost Calculation

As for the reason why DOJ and EPA now concede that the post-October engines will be far more expensive than originally envisioned in 1998: The initial cost estimate was based on modifying a fully-complying 4-grams NOx HC engine to 2.5 grams, rather than converting the partly-complying 4-grams-FTP cycle, 6-grams Euro 3 cycle engines that Cat has been selling. Just getting the engines to 4-grams on both test cycles adds additional costs, even before adding further costs required to hit 2.5-grams, DOJ argues.

Under the consent decree, Cat was "allowed to continue selling 4-gram FTP/6-gram Euro-3 heavy-duty engines through October 1, 2002," DOJ says. "The quid quo pro for avoiding an interim design change [to 4 grams on Euro-3] was that, as of Oct. 1, 2002, Caterpillar was required to achieve over-compliance with the 4-gram standard by manufacturing engines meeting the 2.5-gram standard on both the FTP and Euro-3."