Emissions fuel debate

By JIM LEUTE ( Contact )   Saturday, Nov. 3, 2007
ADVERTISEMENT
 

— With attention focused on fuel economy debates on the East Coast, General Motors and other automakers are now trying to snuff out a call for stricter vehicle emission standards emanating from the West Coast.

The regulatory results of each could have a significant effect on the GM assembly plant in Janesville, which builds full-size sport utility vehicles that are often at the heart of any debate on fuel efficiency and emissions.

California wants to impose tougher regulations on the emission of greenhouse gases from passenger cars, pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles and vans. It wants to implement a 2002 state law that would make automakers build vehicles that emit less greenhouse gas by the 2009 model year, with eventual reductions of 30 percent by 2016.

Eleven other states have joined California’s effort, which can take effect only if the Environmental Protection Agency grants a waiver under the Clean Air Act.

While the EPA has said a decision is expected by year-end, automakers say individual state rules would create chaos at auto plants and in the marketplace.

“We’d need a national policy, not one driven by individual states,” said Robert F. Babik, GM’s director of vehicle emissions. “We sell vehicles nationwide, and vehicles are mobile. They move from state to state.”

Babik was in Sun Prairie on Friday addressing the Governor’s Task Force on Global Warming, which is wrangling with a wide variety of issues that ultimately will be boiled down to public policy recommendations.

One of those issues is whether Wisconsin should sign on in support of the California standards.

Gary Malkus, who manages the GM plant in Janesville and its 2,500 hourly and 200 salaried workers, serves on the task force. Obviously, he doesn’t think the California standards make for the best public policy.

Tom Cackette does, however. As executive director of the California Air Resources Board, he also was on hand Friday.

California was granted an EPA waiver in the 1960s to impose stricter emission regulations to reduce smog in Los Angeles. Carmakers met those challenges, Cackette said, and the efforts in California pioneered onboard computers, fuel vapor controls, check engine diagnostics and fuel injection.

“That all led to the cleanest passenger cars in the world,” Cackette said, adding that L.A.’s air quality has improved significantly despite a huge increase in the number of vehicles on the road and the miles they travel.

L.A.’s air, however, is still the dirtiest in the nation, he said.

Babik said the rest of the nation shouldn’t “be forced to go on a diet just because California has a problem.”

Babik and Cackette said today’s vehicles are 99 percent cleaner than they were in 1990.

That will improve, Babik said, as new models with new technologies replace an older fleet.

“California’s standards are happening in a very short time frame,” he said. “This is an extreme stretch from the technology, feasibility and timing standpoints.”

Babik said every new GM model is designed with fuel efficiency and emission improvements.

In June, the Senate passed corporate average fuel economy legislation that mandates a standard of 35 miles per gallon for new cars and trucks by 2020. Babik said GM and other automakers support an alternative bill with a target of 32 mpg to 35 mpg by 2022.

“GM supports change,” he said. “We support reductions in green house gases and better fuel efficiency. We just need flexibility.”

That flexibility, he said, involves emerging technology and alternative fuels that are in varying stages of availability.

As an example, GM routinely touts its flexible fuel vehicles, most notably those that run on E-85.

Wisconsin is a leader in alternative fuels, Babik said, noting that the state annually produces 268 million gallons of ethanol with production plans for another 220 million gallons. E-85 is available at 94 fueling stations in Wisconsin.

California, he said, produces about 68 million gallons of ethanol each year. E-85 is available at one California station, although three others are planned.

Cakette said that in addition to being good for the environment, the proposed California standards will benefit consumers. All models will be available, vehicle cost increases will be minimal and warrantees and repair assistance will improve, he said.

Automakers will be able to meet the stricter standards with either off-the-shelf or emerging technologies, he said.

For example, the 2008 dual-mode hybrid Tahoe that GM will start producing later this year already will comply with the 2016 California standards.

Babik isn’t so sure about that. And even if the Tahoe is compliant, the hybrid technology will cost much more than the Californians believe.

“We believe the California standards will add an average premium of $3,000 to the cost of a new car,” he said. “In California, they believe it will be between $300 and $1,000.

“… I didn’t know the California Air Resources Board was in the business of building cars.”

Babik said in 2006, there were 230 million vehicles on the roads, a significant increase over 1979. Those vehicles are traveling more than one trillion more miles.

Combating those growing numbers will require much more than stricter state-by-state emissions standards, Babik said.

“It’s very much a package deal that includes, among other things, evolving technologies and fuel diversity,” he said.







reader COMMENTS (3)
gonzo
Nov 4, 2007 at 2:28 p.m.
Suggest removal

Statements like "the rest of the nation shouldn’t 'be forced to go on a diet just because California has a problem.'" demonstrate a disturbingly short-sighted business philosophy and explain the big 3's downfall in recent years. I fear the day GM closes up shop in Janesville, but with these kind of attitudes its inevitable. mend your fuelish ways

brewerandy
Nov 4, 2007 at 11:03 a.m.
Suggest removal

I bought a foreign car last year in part because it had a much better fuel efficiency than any domestic cars I looked at. GM needs to stop pretending that higher costs, that they'll only had down to consumers anyway, matter and start telling us why they won't produce more efficient vehicles that might spur demand for their products.

AbeFroman1986
Nov 3, 2007 at 10:39 p.m.
Suggest removal

As a former resident, I realize the importance of G.M. to Janesville’s economic vitality, but to use it as a weapon against legislating for cleaner automobiles is unfair to the world. After reading this article, I have to question G.M.’s logic that the company should not have to meet the highest standard of efficiency simply because the vehicles they build have a tendency to travel across state lines. If G.M. makes vehicles which meet the highest emissions regulations of California, it is no longer innovative or impossible for the company to meet those same standards nationwide. Corporations tend to aim for the lowest common denominator, and that is fine for heedless profit, but when it comes to the health of the eco-system and the air we breath, we can no longer accept this status quo. As much as a well paying factory job means to Janesville, perhaps employees and consumers need to demand G.M. hasten its intent to provide us with eco-friendly vehicles which will also lead to a sustainable and more stable economy, not to mention a planet that is still here for driving said vehicles. If the last seven years has taught anything, it is politicians and corporate henchmen, often one in the same, do not care about the well-being of the average customer or constituent. Nostalgia for the old way is fine, but is dangerous when it cripples our ability to meet the imminent demands of the near future.

Before you post a comment, consider this:

Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy Agreement
  • Keep it clean. Comments that are obscene, vulgar or sexually oriented will be removed. Creative spelling of such terms or implied use of such language is banned, also.
  • Don't threaten to hurt or kill anyone.
  • Be nice. No racism, sexism or any other sort of -ism that degrades another person.
  • Harassing comments. If you are the subject of a harassing comment or personal attack by another user, do not respond in-kind.  Hit the "Suggest Removal" button on offensive comments.
  • Share what you know. Give us your eyewitness accounts, background, observations and history.
  • Do not libel anyone. Libel is writing something false about someone that damages that person's reputation.
  • Ask questions. What more do you want to know about the story?
  • Stay focused. Keep on the story's topic.
  • Help us get it right. If you spot a factual error or misspelling, email newsroom@gazettextra.com or call 1-800-362-6712.
  • Remember, this is our site. We set the rules, and we reserve the right to remove any comments that we deem inappropriate.

Post Comment

Commenting requires registration.

Username:
Password: (Forgotten your password?)

Comment:

ADVERTISEMENT