|
California Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Light-Duty Vehicles |
|
The State of California was given authority under CAAA90 to set emissions standards for light-duty vehicles that exceed Federal standards. In addition, other States that do not comply with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) set by the EPA under CAAA90 were given the option to adopt California’s light-duty vehicle emissions standards in order to achieve air quality compliance. CAAA90 specifically identifies hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide, and NOx as vehicle-related air pollutants that can be regulated. California has led the Nation in developing stricter vehicle emissions standards, and other States have adopted the California standards [5]. California Assembly Bill 1493 (A.B. 1493), signed into law in July 2002, required the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop and adopt GHG emissions standards for light-duty vehicles that would provide the maximum feasible reduction in emissions. In determining the maximum feasible standard, CARB was required to consider cost-effectiveness, technological capability, economic impacts, and flexibility for manufacturers in meeting the standard. CARB was not allowed to consider the following compliance options: mandatory trip reductions; land use restrictions; additional fees and/or taxes on any motor vehicle, fuel, or vehicle miles traveled; a ban on any vehicle category; reduction in vehicle weight; or a limitation or reduction of speed limits on any street or highway in the State. Tailpipe emissions of CO2, which are directly proportional to vehicle fuel consumption, account for the vast majority of total GHG emissions from vehicles. In August 2004, CARB released a report detailing its proposed GHG emissions standards for light-duty vehicles, which were approved by California’s Office of Administrative Law on September 15, 2005.
The standards approved in September 2005 cover GHG emissions associated with vehicle operation, air conditioning operation and maintenance, and production of vehicle fuel. The standards apply to noncommercial light-duty passenger vehicles manufactured for model years 2009 and beyond. The standards, specified in terms of CO2 equivalent emissions, apply to vehicles in two size classes: passenger cars and small light-duty trucks with a loaded vehicle weight rating of 3,750 pounds or less; and heavy light-duty trucks with a loaded vehicle weight rating greater than 3,750 pounds and a gross vehicle weight rating less than 8,500 pounds. The CO2 equivalent emission standard for heavy light trucks includes noncommercial passenger trucks between 8,500 pounds and 10,000 pounds. The regulations approved in September 2005 set near-term standards, to be phased in between 2009 and 2012, and mid-term standards, to be phased in between 2013 and 2016. After 2016, the emissions standards are assumed to remain constant. Table 2 summarizes the CO2 equivalent standards. In October 2003, California, 11 other States, 3 cities, and several environmental groups filed a petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals, arguing that the EPA should regulate GHG emissions from vehicles. In July 2005, the court ruled that the EPA was not required to regulate GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act. Given the constraints on using other measures, improvements in fuel economy are the only practical way to meet the standards. The automotive industry, which opposes A.B. 1493, has filed suit against CARB, arguing that California GHG emissions standards are in essence fuel economy standards and therefore are preempted by a Federal statute that gives the U.S. Department of Transportation the only authority to regulate fuel economy [6]. CARB has not yet obtained a Clean Air Act waiver from the EPA, which would be required before it can implement its GHG emissions standards. For this reason and due to the uaaaancertainty surrounding the pending lawsuit, A.B. 1493 is not represented in the AEO2006 reference case. Potential impacts of the regulations were examined, however, in AEO2005, using the AEO2005 reference case as a starting point to estimate their likely effects on vehicle prices, GHG emissions, regional energy demand, and regional fuel prices [7].
Contact: John Maples |
