Report: California adopts tough diesel emission standards - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

DeliveryValve · #1 12-13-2008, 12:45 PM

California adopts tough diesel emission standards

By SAMANTHA YOUNG,
AP – Fri Dec 12, 8:59 pm ET
www.yahoo.com

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – California, a state plagued by smoggy skies and rising asthma rates, adopted the nation's toughest diesel emission standards Friday for the trucks and buses that crowd its highways.

The state Air Resources Board approved the rule despite warnings it could shut down many small trucking companies in the state. Many of them rely on the older, dirtier vehicles targeted by the change.

The regulation comes one day after the board adopted a sweeping plan to reduce the state's greenhouse gases, which is expected to change everything from the way factories operate to the fuel Californians put in their vehicles.

Starting in 2011, the diesel rules will speed up the replacement of thousands of polluting trucks and buses that typically stay on the road for decades and are not as clean as newer models that have tougher, federally mandated emissions standards.

Board chairwoman Mary Nichols said California has a legal obligation to clean up pollution and meet federal air standards. Failing to meet those targets could cost the state an estimated $2 billion in federal transportation funding.

Air regulators estimate the emissions standards would cost businesses, school districts and transit agencies $5.5 billion over 16 years.

Many trucking companies say they cannot afford to comply.

Ron Faulkner, president of Tulare-based Faulkner Trucking, estimated it would cost him $7 million to replace 26 of his 35 aging trucks by 2014. He said he doesn't know if he can afford it, since his company only turns a profit of $50,000 a year.

"I've worked hard to build this to where it's at and they're going to tear it down," he said.

Nearly a million vehicles will have to be replaced or retrofitted with smog traps, filters or cleaner-burning technology beginning in 2011. By 2014, all trucks must have soot filters, and by the time the rule is fully implemented in 2023, no truck or bus in California will be allowed to be older than 13 years unless it has equipment to cut nitrogen oxide emissions.

State officials said the compliance cost is outweighed by an estimated $48 billion to $69 billion in health benefits for Californians afflicted with illnesses caused by breathing diesel fumes.

The state also has several loan programs and bond money to help businesses replace their fleets.

.
.
.

DeliveryValve · #2 12-13-2008, 12:52 PM

I talked to a buddy of mine who is an independent trucker. He says they are all ticked about this and would see many of his fellow independents moving to bigger operations.

Jeremy5848 · #3 12-13-2008, 01:07 PM

Truck manufacturers have had 20+ years to begin adopting the changes to their engines that Mercedes made to the OM617 engine in the 1980s. We're not talking Bluetec here, just simple things that diesel cars have had for years. That truck engine builders chose to ignore the problem until the state finally got tired of their stalling and forced them to comply does not wring any tears out of me.

Our local PBS radio station (KQED) had a program on the subject a day or so ago. One of the participants was a spokeswoman for the trucking industry; all she did was whine. She gets no sympathy from me. Truck owners and drivers, OTOH, shouldn't have all of the burden dumped on them for something that is primarily a manufacturing lapse.

Jeremy

jross · #4 12-13-2008, 01:30 PM

Until recently, I worked for the state helping with fleet maintenance at my university, and have been dealing with the diesel emissions issue for a while. We just retrofitted one of our buses to comply with the emissions standards, but we're losing the rest of the fleet (combined smog & ADA retrofit costs will exceed the value of the buses).

Quote:

Truck manufacturers have had 20+ years to begin adopting the changes to their engines that Mercedes made to the OM617 engine in the 1980s. We're not talking Bluetec here, just simple things that diesel cars have had for years. That truck engine builders chose to ignore the problem until the state finally got tired of their stalling and forced them to comply does not wring any tears out of me.

Umm.. no.

The particulate filters that are required to be retrofitted are not like anything you'll find on the 617 diesels, or any car diesel. In fact, they're alot closer to the scrubbers mounted in industrial smokestacks. The changes being mandated arn't because of "truck builders [choosing] to ignore the problem", they're because technology has advanced, and it's now possible to build sophisicated devices to help reduce the emissions.

The interesting thing to watch will be to see how broad the law itself actually is. If it isn't much more specific than "commerical vehicles", there will be a very odd situation developing. Due to a quirk of law, all pickups are designated "commercial vehicles" here unless you have a camper permanently attacked and have the registration changed to a "house car". Even if they regulate based on GWVR, many pickups now have a high enough weight & load rating that an optioned-out F350 may be required to comply (new, full size duallies tend to skirt the border of the GVWR required for a Motor Carrier Permit [MCP]).

Ah, the joys of living in CA

MTUpower · #5 12-13-2008, 01:43 PM

How much does it cost and how much energy is used to design, build, transport, stock, market, sell, and service a new vehicle (plus destroy/recycle the old vehicle) vs keep the older one on the road longer? Where is the break even point? Is this question even addressed?

jross · #6 12-13-2008, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTUpower

How much does it cost and how much energy is used to design, build, transport, stock, market, sell, and service a new vehicle (plus destroy/recycle the old vehicle) vs keep the older one on the road longer? Where is the break even point? Is this question even addressed?

The particulate matter trap is between $10k-$15k per truck. As to lifecycle analysis - that's way beyond legislators. It's very energy intensive to destroy and old truck and build a new one, but the issue is the immediate "gains" in air quality. What this basically is a very cute way of moving the worst of our emissions elsewhere (realistically, China) - which ignores that we're all sort of sharing the same atmosphere anyways. It's like how California purchases electricity...

MTUpower · #7 12-13-2008, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jross

The particulate matter trap is between $10k-$15k per truck. As to lifecycle analysis - that's way beyond legislators. It's very energy intensive to destroy and old truck and build a new one, but the issue is the immediate "gains" in air quality. What this basically is a very cute way of moving the worst of our emissions elsewhere (realistically, China) - which ignores that we're all sort of sharing the same atmosphere anyways. It's like how California purchases electricity...

Why is that people who don't want this to happen- ie trucking companies, environmentalists, regular people will not address or raise this point? Are we so duped by the enviro-nazi's that we become blind to the real goal?

BodhiBenz1987 · #8 12-13-2008, 01:48 PM

Great time to institute legislature that will slaughter trucking companies, what with the economy so stable and all. I don't really have a problem with environmental aspirations, but California seems to impose these directives haphazardly. Not the time, kids. I also don't think there's any rhyme or reason to the standards they chose, or how they chose to apply them. It's also curious that, while Calif has had the strictest, meanest emission standards since most of our old MBs were made, yet they continue to be the smoggiest, most asthma-prone state ... not that it's easy to quantify whether or not that sort of thing is working. Still, seems like they're just swinging blindly away with legislature.

Astroman · #9 12-13-2008, 02:13 PM

They've obviously been taking lessons from Alan Greenspan. "Hold on a sec while I drive a stake through the heart of the economy at the worst possible time."
Did you notice that to preserve 2 billion in federal funding, they lay 5.5 billion in costs at the feet of operators. Must be new math.

Hatterasguy · #10 12-14-2008, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Astroman

They've obviously been taking lessons from Alan Greenspan. "Hold on a sec while I drive a stake through the heart of the economy at the worst possible time."
Did you notice that to preserve 2 billion in federal funding, they lay 5.5 billion in costs at the feet of operators. Must be new math.

Its called saving my wallet at the expense of other peoples.

CA should just outlaw people, then the environment will be clean.

::matthew · #11 12-13-2008, 05:10 PM

Ron Faulkner, president of Tulare-based Faulkner Trucking, estimated it would cost him $7 million to replace 26 of his 35 aging trucks by 2014. He said he doesn't know if he can afford it, since his company only turns a profit of $50,000 a year.

The guy's company has 35 trucks and turns a 50K profit? Perhaps he ought to consider something different.

stephenc03 · #12 12-13-2008, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ::matthew

Ron Faulkner, president of Tulare-based Faulkner Trucking, estimated it would cost him $7 million to replace 26 of his 35 aging trucks by 2014. He said he doesn't know if he can afford it, since his company only turns a profit of $50,000 a year.

The guy's company has 35 trucks and turns a 50K profit? Perhaps he ought to consider something different.

Matt,
he turns a profit of 50,000 a year net....that is after all of his driver's medical is paid, maintanence of the vehicles, paying for his secratary to go on maternaty and things of that nature....the owner probably pays himself 100,000 dollars or more. and 50,000 is left over to be invested in the company. 50k is alot of money considering all the things that can happen throughout one year to 35 trucks and over 35 employees. That is only enough money to buy one new truck a year. That means out of a 35 truck fleet each truck get replaced every 35 years. the owner is probably hoping he can get 20 out of them.
I worked for a fertilizer company in san diego county and that is how the owner delt with his finances and most small business do that also as far as taxes are concerned. the owner charges his company what he is worth (which is always inflated), pays his employees, medical, all th othe associated cost with doing business and IF there is mony left over it is invest back into the company....
Stephen

::matthew · #13 12-13-2008, 09:56 PM

the article doesn't say that the profit is gross, net, a number he pulled out of a hat, or whatever else...It also doesn't mention what, if any health care expenses or maternity leave he pays.

but a net profit of 50K seems like a fairly low return on 35 trucks.

Government at all levels has heavily subsidized trucking for many years. 90% of damage to interstates and federal highways is due to commercial trucking; which is a cost that is paid by all taxpayers, not just those who benefit from the goods being transported. As government budgets get tighter and the true environmental costs of transport begin to get factored into the cost of products sold, I imagine we will see a lot less of the cheap plastic crap that comes in through long beach or whatever port and gets put on trucks.

People are going to be put out of business by increased environmental regulations and it's not always a bad thing at the macro level. Ron Faulkner might do fine with a dozen 2012 Volvos for his fleet...it's not like it's just him that's having to buy new trucks or have his current ones re-fitted. Maybe he’ll score some low cost financing from the government to help him come into compliance.

stephenc03 · #14 12-13-2008, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ::matthew

the article doesn't say that the profit is gross, net, a number he pulled out of a hat, or whatever else...It also doesn't mention what, if any health care expenses or maternity leave he pays.

but a net profit of 50K seems like a fairly low return on 35 trucks.

Government at all levels has heavily subsidized trucking for many years. 90% of damage to interstates and federal highways is due to commercial trucking; which is a cost that is paid by all taxpayers, not just those who benefit from the goods being transported. As government budgets get tighter and the true environmental costs of transport begin to get factored into the cost of products sold, I imagine we will see a lot less of the cheap plastic crap that comes in through long beach or whatever port and gets put on trucks.

People are going to be put out of business by increased environmental regulations and it's not always a bad thing at the macro level. Ron Faulkner might do fine with a dozen 2012 Volvos for his fleet...it's not like it's just him that's having to buy new trucks or have his current ones re-fitted. Maybe he’ll score some low cost financing from the government to help him come into compliance.

Matt,
It is naturally assumed that if a trucking company has 35 trucks in its fleet...they are paying benefits and such. I have my commercial drivers license and I have been in the business for almost a decade. Who are you to say or anyone for that matter especially the government how Ron can run his business. He should be able to run 100 trucks if he wants to. I can also verify that if 50,000 was gross, he definatly would not be in business. That doesnt even cover cost of fuel for a year for one truck. You missed my point entirely. After EVERYTHING is paid at the end of the year....insurance, CHP certificates, licenses, driver physicals, tolls, and everyones salary...he puts 50,000 dollars into a bank account that the company has at its' desposal next year.
I totaly agree with you that transportation is the most heavily regulated industry around...that is why it is so expensive to opperate the business.

Hatterasguy · #15 12-14-2008, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ::matthew

the article doesn't say that the profit is gross, net, a number he pulled out of a hat, or whatever else...It also doesn't mention what, if any health care expenses or maternity leave he pays.

but a net profit of 50K seems like a fairly low return on 35 trucks.

If your running your business right you shouldn't have any profit at the end of the year.