HOUSE BILL REPORT
ESHB 1397
As Passed House:
March 16, 2005
Title: An act relating to vehicle emission standards.
Brief Description: Changing vehicle emission standards provisions.
Sponsors: By House Committee on Transportation (originally sponsored by Representatives Murray, Jarrett, Morris, B. Sullivan, Anderson, Appleton, Wallace, P. Sullivan, Kenney, Campbell, Rodne, Hunt, Priest, Springer, Tom, Lovick, Quall, Pettigrew, Kirby, Clibborn, Kilmer, Dunshee, Dickerson, Ericks, Green, Sells, Hasegawa, Upthegrove, Williams, Moeller, McIntire, Chase, Simpson, McDermott, Hudgins and Wood).
Brief History:
Transportation: 2/17/05, 2/22/05 [DPS].
Floor Activity:
Passed House: 3/16/05, 53-42.
Brief Summary of Engrossed Substitute Bill |
|
|
|
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Majority Report: The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass. Signed by 17 members: Representatives Murray, Chair; Wallace, Vice Chair; Appleton, Campbell, Dickerson, Flannigan, Hudgins, Jarrett, Kilmer, Lovick, Rodne, Sells, Simpson, B. Sullivan, Takko, Upthegrove and Wood.
Minority Report: Do not pass. Signed by 7 members: Representatives Woods, Ranking Minority Member; Buck, Curtis, Hankins, Nixon, Schindler and Shabro.
Staff: Beth Redfield (786-7347).
Background:
Under the federal Clean Air Act, the states have the option to implement either federal motor
vehicle emission standards or California motor vehicle emissions standards for passenger
cars, light duty trucks and medium duty passenger vehicles.
The Washington State Clean Air Act amendments passed in 1991 require engine
manufacturers to conform with the exhaust emission standards of the federal Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). They also prohibit the Department of Ecology (DOE) from
adopting the California vehicle emissions standards unless authorized by the Legislature.
California's current low emission vehicle standards (called "LEV II") are being phased in
over the 2004 through 2010 model years. The program reduces nitrogen oxides and
hydrocarbons. The rules require that 90 percent of new cars and light duty trucks meet low
emission standards and 10 percent of vehicles meet zero emission standards. Manufacturers
may receive partial credits toward meeting the zero emissions requirements through the
production of partial zero emission vehicles (PZEVs).
In 2002, the California Legislature approved Assembly Bill 1493 (Rep. Pavley) which would
extend emissions controls to greenhouse gases, beginning with the 2009 model year. The
California Air Resources Board has submitted proposed implementing rules to the 2005
California Legislature for approval. These changes have not yet been approved by the EPA
and are under litigation in California.
Until 2008, certain certificate of ownership fees must be distributed to three accounts as
follows: 58.12 percent to an Air Pollution Control sub-account, 15.71 percent to the Vessel
Response Account, and 26.17 percent to the Transportation 2003 (Nickel) Account.
Beginning on July 1, 2008, all of these fees will be deposited in the Transportation 2003
(Nickel) Account.
A portion of the money in the air pollution control sub-account has been appropriated to the
DOE to retrofit school buses with exhaust emission control devices as well as fueling
infrastructure necessary to allow school bus fleets to use alternative, cleaner fuels.
State law requires the DOE to administer a program to test vehicle emissions in those areas
that violate or are likely to violate federal air quality standards. Currently, vehicle emission
tests are required in the urban areas of Clark, King, Pierce, Snohomish and Spokane counties.
Motor vehicles in these areas must be inspected every two years. Vehicles which are 25
years or older are exempt from emissions testing. The inspection stations are operated under
contract with the DOE. No person contracted to inspect motor vehicles may perform repairs
for compensation.
Summary of Engrossed Substitute Bill:
The Legislature adopts the California motor vehicle emission standards in effect on January
1, 2005. If Oregon adopts the California emissions standards for application to model year
2009 vehicles, Washington rules will also begin with 2009 model year vehicles. Otherwise,
the application of the rules will be applied beginning with model year 2010 vehicles.
Beginning with the first applicable model year, no vehicle will be registered, leased, rented,
or sold for use in the state unless the vehicle: (1) is consistent with the vehicle emission
standards adopted by the DOE; or (2) has 7,500 miles or more. Starting with the first
applicable model year, new vehicles are exempt from emission inspections.
The Department of Licensing and the DOE are granted rulemaking authority, and may
provide for reasonable exemptions to those requirements. In particular, the DOE may exempt
public safety vehicles if DOE finds that public safety vehicles are not reasonably available.
For final adoption at the rules, the order of adoption must include the Governor's signature.
In its rulemaking, the Department of Ecology may provide for a system of awarding partial
credits toward zero emission vehicle requirements. In addition, these credits will be awarded
for partial zero emissions vehicles produced and sold prior to the first applicable model year.
At the choice of the manufacturers, the early credits may reflect the Washington market,
recognizing that there may be more early sales of partial zero emission vehicles in
Washington.
In order to prevent tampering with odometers to avoid compliance with the new emissions
standards, the bill makes it a gross misdemeanor to turn forward the odometer of any vehicle.
The Office of Financial Management, in conjunction with the Departments of Licensing,
Revenue, and Ecology, must report annually on the availability of vehicles meeting the
standards, the progress of automobile industries in meeting the requirements, and other
relevant matters to the success of the industry in implementing these requirements.
Two 1991 statutes are repealed: (1) requiring engine manufacturers to certify that new
engines conform with current exhaust emission standards of the EPA; and (2) prohibiting the
DOE from adopting the California vehicle emission standards.
Monies formerly dedicated to school buses would also be used for other publicly-owned
diesel equipment upon a finding of a public health benefit. The remaining monies may be
used to reduce any transportation-related air contaminant emissions in addition to the other
uses.
Beginning in 2012, the DOE may authorize businesses other than the emissions inspection
contractor to conduct emission inspections. Authorized businesses may also perform repairs
on any vehicles. The emission inspections program terminates in 2020.
Appropriation: None.
Fiscal Note: Available.
Effective Date: The bill contains an emergency clause and takes effect immediately, except Sections 4, 5, and 9 relating to the Air Pollution Control Account, which takes effective July 1, 2005.
Testimony For: The bill is the product of a collaborative stakeholder process that brought
together diverse interests including prominent businesses, civic groups and local
governments. Clean car standards were a top priority of the group. The first reason is that
clean car standards produced the largest economic benefits: over $2 billion in benefits
statewide by 2020. The net benefit to a car purchaser is $2,000 over the life of the vehicle. If
the car is financed, there is a net savings of $11 per month while paying off the car, and the
owner saves $18 per month after the car is paid off. The second reason is that the clean car
standard delivers the largest environmental benefits, including major reductions in cancer
causing air toxics and global warming pollutants. Motor vehicles are more than half the
problem. Will auto makers do their fair share or will local businesses bear the entire
responsibility? The third reason is that clean car standards reduce our dependence on
petroleum. There is a growing consensus that we are too dependent on petroleum, hurting the
environment, the economy and national security. This is the single largest step a state can
take to do something about this compelling public policy problem. Finally, it is time to
deliver on better vehicle technology that we know auto engineers can deliver. Cost estimates
by lobbyists for manufacturers have historically been two to 10 times higher than delivered
technology.
In a given year, the transportation system is responsible for 50 million metric tons of
pollutants. The people of the state believe that cars can be compatible with clean air. The
federal government has chosen not to do this, so it falls to the states and California has been
the leader. At first, two states adopted the California standards, then four, then eight, and
with Washington there will be nine. Soon, a critical mass will be established and the
progress we want for vehicles will be made.
The legislation fits with promoting quality of life and clean air as an economic driver. It also
fits with the ability to accommodate future growth. It allows economic growth while
maintaining our air resources. Many Washington cities will send in resolutions in support of
the bill. Seattle will be buying these cars. Seattle has over 3,000 cars in its fleet. If clean
cars are available, we will buy them. Our airshed has only so much room. With more cars
and trucks on the road, we will lose our status as a liveable region. A key limit on economic
growth is air quality. Although currently meeting standards, ability to handle growth without
exceeding attainment levels will be difficult. Exceeding the limits will bring new
requirements from the federal government.
Cleaner requirements will be an impetus to new technology. Washington has a strong
technology base, so we should live up to this potential.
One in 10 children living in Seattle and Spokane has asthma. That is nearly double the
national average for asthma. There is a clear correlation between spikes in pollutant levels
and the incidence of asthma attacks in doctors' offices, emergency rooms and hospitals.
These pollutants are primarily generated by internal combustion auto and truck engines.
Clean car standards reduce fine particulates and ozone, both common contributors to health
problems. Lung cancer risk is also reduced due to lower benzene exposure. Benzene is a
known carcinogen and 50 percent of benzene comes from cars and light trucks. Clean car
states have seen a 25 percent reduction in benzene and formaldehyde levels.
In classrooms, it used to be typical for student health alerts for diabetes and bee stings. Now,
health alerts have quintupled and they are overwhelmingly due to asthma.
Proponents have sought to address dealer concerns. Dealers have received assurance that
customers will continue to have access to high-volume, hot-selling cars. You will hear scare
messages from manufacturers. The same arguments were made against airbags, five mile per
hour bumpers, and previous emissions standards.
Diesel cars will be allowed. Work and farm trucks are exempt. The California Legislature
required a full range of availability of models. Military personnel can bring vehicles in. In
California, car buyers get a 15 year/150,000 mile warranty. There is no loss in performance.
Cars will look just like they do today. California estimates the price will increase by $300
early on and $1,000 later in implementation.
The objective of the new standards is lower greenhouse gas emissions; it just happens that
fuel efficiency is also improved and that puts money back in people's pockets. Washington
will not be buying into a lawsuit. The case is being fought in federal court in California.
The bill will allow Washington to phase out the emissions testing program. The rules will be
relatively easy to adopt because Washington is just adopting what's already been done. We
can do this with low administrative costs, only three FTEs are needed to administer the
program.
This will reduce gas tax revenue, but we knew that was coming anyway. We must get used
to the fact that cleaner cars do not mean cheaper roads. We will have to adjust and pay for
roads in a different way. It will be an issue in every state and for the country as a whole.
Testimony Against: First, this is not about cleaner cars; this is about what kind of regulatory
structure you want and which standards you want to govern pollution levels. The
manufacturers are building cars as clean as you can build cars. Ninety-nine percent of the
pollution is taken out. The federal standards for pollution controls and the California
standards will bring us no difference in air quality in this state. This bill would bring
prescriptive requirements in terms of vehicles distributed into the consumer stream. It also
means we would adopt very controversial greenhouse gas rules. This is simply an effort to
regulate fuel economy. That is why there is a lawsuit in California. You have heard people
say that we would be the eighth state to adopt these standards. We would be the first state to
adopt standards that include greenhouse gas standards. Manufacturers estimate a cost
increase of $3,000 for meeting greenhouse gas standards. The California estimates are off to
a great degree. California assumed that technologies used in various makes and models of
cars could be combined in a single car and it would work. It is not that simple. We don't
know how we'll meet the greenhouse gas standards. We do know we'll need to double
mileage in the time given.
There will be loss of choice in vehicles, especially in Washington State where there is higher
demand for trucks. This effects choices for farmers, contractors, and people with large
families.
The bill will also bring a new regulatory structure. Washington State will have to assign
people to work with manufacturers to make sure they are bringing in the right kinds of
vehicles and making them available to consumers. On an ongoing basis, the state will have
to work with manufacturers to help us figure out how to comply. These rules have been
troublesome; they have been changed 49 times since 1990. They told us to make electric
vehicles. No one bought them; we had to give them away. In order to make the very
prescriptive elements of standards work, California had to develop a system of credits. The
question is open, whether Washington would also adopt the credits or would develop a new
system? For those of us concerned about funding for transportation projects, we would prefer
to use public money for transportation projects and not for a new bureaucracy.
These are extraordinarily complex regulations. Washington has the distinguished status of
being in attainment for health based standards. The industry applauds that. There is good
news under the current federal program. Federal "Tier II" standards have achieved a 70
percent reduction in pollutants. This is the equivalent of taking seven out of 10 cars off the
road. Unless there is a dramatic reduction of pollution from other sources, it is hard to
imagine how Washington would fall out of attainment.
The critical difference between current California and the EPA standards is in the zero
emission vehicle mandate. It is complex and wildly expensive. According to California's
own estimates, the zero emissions mandate is up to 4,300 times more expensive than
California's other regulations.
Carbon dioxide standards are fuel economy standards, and federal law prohibits states from
regulating fuel economy. The manufacturers filed suit in federal court in December 2004. If
it is not a fuel economy standard then where are the consumer benefits? Of the 45
technologies identified to meet the standards, 38 control fuel economy. Standards are so low
that not even a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle could meet them.
New vehicle prices will increase by thousands. Pollution will increase because people will
put off buying new cars.
Auto dealers agree that public health and air quality are critical goals. And, we must work to
take advantage of significant advances in technologies, rather than seeking to retrofit old cars.
But this will discourage the replacement of old dirty cars. It will reduce availability. It will
frustrate the goal of air quality. Prices will go up. People will be less likely to buy. The new
standards could limit choice in two ways: manufacturers will be limited in the number of
larger vehicles they may deliver and the numbers that may be traded.
In Washington, 54 percent of vehicles purchased are trucks. This will be a problem. Under
the new greenhouse standards, we will have to sell a greater number of high mile-per-gallon
cars. As a result, fewer lower mile-per-gallon cars will be available.
We rely on the ability to trade cross-border to meet sales requirements. Transportation costs
are less expensive from dealers in neighboring states. To get these new cars we may have to
go to New England and pay very high transportation costs.
There is no demonstrated need to exceed federal standards. No state has implemented the
greenhouse gas standard. A complete fiscal note is needed, the current one does not deal
with the cost of new cars to local government. While under the standards are under litigation,
it would be unwise to move forward. It has been suggested that it will be good for business,
but businesses haven't been saying that.
The bill adopts Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations. The Legislature should
consider adding all of Title 13 into the bill. Otherwise, it is misleading. The standards do
include trucks which are 8,500 pounds. Farmers have more than combines, we also need
trucks. The California law was not supposed to include commercial vehicles, yet it does.
For recreational vehicle dealers, a great deal of business is in fifth wheels. These require the
towing ability of a large Sport Utility Vehicle. We are concerned that there won't be enough
of these for our customers. From the wholesalers point of view, creating a Washington-only
product will be problematic for moving inventories around. Program cars with low mileage
would have to comply. For rental car companies that swap a fleet out every so many months,
these price increases will be very expensive.
The 15 year/150,000 mile warranties are not good for repair shops. This is an anti-small
business law which could put us out of business. All references to extended warranties
should be deleted.
We do not have an air quality problem in Washington state. We are at least 20 percent below
standards. There is only a 5 percent chance of going into non-attainment. Adopting
California vehicle emissions standards will not change that probability. The climate change
report for the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency was not peer reviewed, it depended only on
cherry-picked snowpack information, comparing extreme highs and lows for the time period.
Persons Testifying: (In support) Dan Clarkson, Prometheus Energy Company; Jean
Godden, Seattle City Council; Matt Liden, Washington Public Interest Research Group; K.C.
Golden, Climate Solutions; Chris Mann, Foothills Auto Group; Dr. John Brotten and Darlene
Madenwald, American Lung Association of Washington; Dennis McLarren, Puget Sound
Clean Air Agency; Stu Clark, Department of Ecology; Tom Cackette, California Air
Resources Board; Cliff Traisman, Washington Conservation Voters; Bill Evans, City of
Tacoma; Wayne Grotheer, Port of Seattle; Robert Pregulman and Kerry Gutknecht,
Washington Public Interest Research Group; Doug MacDonald, Washington State
Department of Transportation; Jim Dipeso, Republicans for Environmental Protection-America; Tanya Barnett, Earth Ministry; Tara Migliore; and Andrea Cuccaro.
(Opposed) Grant Nelson, Association of Washington Business; Toni McKinley, Washington
State Grange; John Stuhlmiller, Washington Farm Bureau; Merle Pfeifer, Sparks Car Care;
Nancee Wildermuth and Steve Douglas, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers; Cody
Benson, Recreational Vehicle Dealers Association; Scott Hazlegrove, Washington Auto
Dealers Association; Rick Jensen, Dealers Auto Auction, Car and Truck Rental and Leasing
Association; and Kay Jones.