A weekly newsletter from the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE)
<http://www.eere.energy.gov/>Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE).

--------------------------------
Oregon Moves to Implement Greenhouse Gas Standards for Cars

Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski initiated several actions on Monday that
will lead to new greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles sold
within the state. The governor directed the state's Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) to develop administrative rules for such
standards, and also issued his intent to veto a line in the DEQ budget that
would have prevented the DEQ from developing the rules. The governor also
announced the formation of a Vehicle Emissions Workgroup to help identify
and address issues related to the rules. The governor's goal is for the new
rules to set tailpipe emissions standards starting with the 2009 model
year. See the governor's
<http://governor.oregon.gov/Gov/press_082905.shtml>press release and the
<http://www.deq.state.or.us/aq/>DEQ Web site.

Oregon's proposed standards will follow the lead of California, which
approved its greenhouse gas standards in September 2004. Washington State
adopted California's standards in May, contingent on Oregon also adopting
the standards. So when Oregon's rules are in place, the entire West Coast
will have the same greenhouse gas emissions standards in place for new
vehicles. For background, see the articles from this newsletter on the
<http://www.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id=8195>California
and
<http://www.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id=9042>Washington
standards.

 

Hi EricGo:

___I am not sure if it was Oregon or some other state but I think the Governor of that fine state is talking out of both sides of his mouth … I believe they are or are thinking about charging more registration tax or some other such item for hybrid’s because they consume less fuel and therefore pay less tax on fuel consumed over a year.

___I also remember Iowa recently pulling a similar stunt … IIRC, it included a higher IOWA corn produced ethanol percentage mandate. At the same time, the governor of that fine state raised the states speed limits by 5 or 10 mph

___I should verify these off-the-cuff statements with a few searches but am a bit tight on time right now …

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Waynegerdes@earthlink.net

 

Hi Wayne,

I vaguely remember something similar about a higher registration fee -- sorry, details are not readily at hand.

FWIW, I distinguish progress towards CO2 caps, and the much more debateable moves to promote or tax hybrids, even when one seems to contradict the other. Many states have grown .. shall we say .. accustomed to their gas tax revenue, and even a 10% reduction is real cause for worry to those people who are charged with balancing the budget. To those people, Prius only means revenue shortfall; and since the current political climate makes raising gas taxes difficult if not impossible, they look for other ways to make up the deficit.

The other office, mandated to look after the environment, love hybrids, and anything that reduces consumption.

The two offices make a point of NOT TALKING TO EACH OTHER, so contradictory signals come out of government. It is the US way. Rather than view this as hypocrisy, I see it as simply competing agendas.

 

What I find interesting is that when you focus primarily on CO2, diesel looks like the most viable solution to get there, yet diesel is effectively banned in all the states that claim to care the most about CO2 emissions!

 

It is that darned CARB, and their infuriating aversion to smog.

In point of historical fact, smog regulations came first; and only now that they have acheived truly remarkable reductions (consider that SULEV is equivalent to ZEV), have they turned their attention to CO2 emissions. It's of course true that global warming was not a concern in 1970, but few who remember the air quality of SoCal in the 70's would want to turn back the clock. I was a kid in LA at the time, and I remember the brown haze visible FROM ACROSS THE STREET when we would head up to the observatory (one of my fav places). Even a decade later in lesser polluted San Diego, visibility was limited to about 6 miles by the ever-present band of smog on the horizon. I am one of the new millions of asthmatics that modern day air pollution has birthed; so trust me when I say, it is a lousy trade-off.

 

I'm pretty sure modern-day diesels can achieve SULEV, they just can't do the super-duper bin-whatever levels that gasoline can. The question then becomes, is SULEV "good enough" that we need to stop pushing the new car levels further and concentrate more on older cars? I still, to this day, do not understand why California permits people to register vehicles that are more than 20 years old. There needs to be a ban on anything more than XX years old if they want to show that they're serious about cleaning up the air.

 

There's another twist to all of this... At some point we declared that the 'goal' is to cut emissions down to zero, as in the ZEV. Auto manufacturers did not want to have to do any ZEV development, but did eventually work with the government funding to develop a few models, but in the meantime they fought the ZEV mandate, so now we have compromises that include somewhat silly emissions limits that may, as you've shown hurt the overall ability of the fleet to get better mileage and reduce the CO2 burden. I think it was a bad compromise, I think we should still be working on getting the fleet to ZEV standards, but by getting true ZEVs on the road, and vehicles that use renewables where otherwise needed.