Posted on 02/07/2005 6:33:23 PM PST by NormsRevenge
SACRAMENTO (AP) - California's new greenhouse gas emission standards can be met largely by using existing auto technologies and will generate consumer savings by improving gas mileage, a state regulator said Monday.
"We're not talking about exotic technologies here," said Chuck Shulock, manager of the state Air Resources Board's greenhouse gas reduction program. "Significant reductions can be achieved simply by taking existing technologies and applying them very broadly across the (vehicle) fleet."
Shulock testified at a hearing held by the Assembly Transportation Committee to determine if regulations approved by the ARB last September comply with 2002 legislation that made California the first state to require auto companies to reduce greenhouse gases that scientists say contribute to global warming.
The new limits, which will be phased in starting in 2009, are designed to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from new cars, light trucks and sports utility vehicles about 30 percent by 2016.
A group of automakers and dealers is challenging the state's effort in court, contending it conflicts with the federal government's role in setting fuel efficiency standards.
The automakers also say the regulations would increase the cost of a new vehicle an average of $3,000, about three times the top ARB figure.
But Shulock said the ARB's cost estimates were determined by the Martec Group, a company he said was also used by the auto industry to gauge the cost of new technologies.
He said any higher prices triggered by the regulations would be "more than offset" for consumers by improved fuel efficiency.
Roland Hwang, vehicles policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said automakers have consistently overestimated the cost of emission control requirements in the past.
Automakers did not testify at the hearing and a call to the Washington headquarters of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, one of the plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit challenging the regulations, was not returned.
Assemblyman Robert Huff, R-Diamond Bar, questioned whether the regulations would be undercut by triggering a "performance shift" of motorists moving to heavier, more powerful vehicles.
But Shulock said the regulations wouldn't weaken vehicle performance. "We realized that if we'd come in here with a regulation that did that it would not be well received."
He also said the technological changes required by the regulations wouldn't boost repair costs. "If anything, some of them are simpler" technologies.
Some of the steps currently available include improved transmissions and cylinder deactivation, which allows an engine to operate on fewer cylinders when the vehicle carries lighter loads, Shulock said.
The author of the 2002 legislation, Assemblywoman Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills, said the regulations follow the "intent and purpose" of her bill.
She said Canada and at least eight other states are considering implementing the same requirements as California.
"It puts us again in a leadership position that people are watching nationally and internationally," she said.
---
On the Net: www.assembly.ca.gov and www.arb.ca.gov
Okay, if you drive 15,000 miles a year at an average of 20 mpg, that's 750 gallons. Improve that to 30 mpg, and that's 500 gallons. You just saved 250 gallons or about $500 at current prices.
It would take 6 years of driving to make up the $3,000 extra cost. "More than make up for" is a lie.
And keep in mind, for that extra $3,000 you're getting a smaller, more plastic, far less safe vehicle.
Sorry, but "savings" and "regulators" together form a nearly perfect oxymoron.
A 30% cut in CO2 is a 30% increase in fuel economy. The only reliable technology to do this is to make lighter vehicles. Lighter vehicles cause more crashes to be fatal. This is truly trading blood for oil.
Arnold strikes again. He has done zero to fix California's worst problems. I know he inherited a mess, but he has done little or nothing to fix it.
I've been wondering how this is going to work. What if you buy a conventional vehicle in another state, a vehicle that won't meet the CA emission standards. Is CA going to say you can't register it if you move to the state? I can't see that passing muster with the Supreme Court.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.