ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
January 7, 1993
IN THE
MATTER
OF:
)
)
APPLICATION OF CALIFORNIA
)
1189-17(C)
MOTOR VEHICLE CONTROL PROGRAM
)
(Rulemaking)
IN
ILLINOIS
)
DISSENTING OPINION (by J. Theodore Meyer):
I dissent from the majority’s action
dismissing
this docket.
I believe that adoption of the California LEV program in Illinois
is
both technically feasible and economically
reasonable.
Therefore, I would have proceeded with the rul.*aking.
In
September 1990, the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
adopted a new program, the Low
**ission
Vehicle (IIV) program, to
fu~thertighten emissions
from
vehicles in California.
The L~FV
program establishes four new categories
of vehicle
emission
standards which are to be phased in beginning in model year (MY)
1994.
The four types of LEV vehicles are categorized according
to
the
emission standards
those
vehicles
must meet.
The
transitional low emission vehicle (TLEV) re~esemts10-20
of mew
vehicle’ production beginning in MY 1994.
TLEVs muSt meet
a
hydrocarbon (BC) standard of 0
•
125 grams per mile (g/mi).
Carbon
monoxide
(CO) and oxides of nitrogen
(NOx). standards are the same
as for MY 1993
vehicles.
The low
emission vehicle
(LEV)
represents 25
of new vehicle production beginning in KY 1997.
LEVs must meet stafldards of 0.075 g/mi BC and 0.2 q/mi
BOx.
The.
CO
standard
for LEVe is the
same
as
for MY
1993
vehicles
and
TLEVs.
The ultra low emission vehicle (ULEV) represents 2
15
of new vehicle production between 1997
—
2003.
The BC
standard
for ULEVs is 0.04 g/mi, and the CO.standird is 1.7 g/mi.
(These
standards are about half of those from LEVs.)
The
BOx
standard
for ULEVS remains the same as for LEVa.
Finally, the
zero
emission vehicle
(ZEV)
represents 2
30
of
new vehicle
production between 1998
-
2003.
The ZEV
is
expected
to be an
electric car, which will not have any direct pollutant emissions.
(P.C.!
35;
Ex.
26B, Tab 5.)
The percentage figures
given for conventional vehicles,
TLEVs, LEVs,
and
ULEVS
are guidelines for
the manufacturers
to
reach fleet average standards.
Manufacturers
are
required to
certify sufficient portions of their fleet to meet
increasingly
strict fleet average standards.
Manufacturers may meet the fleet
As used here, the term “vehicle” refers to passenger cars
and
light-duty trucks rated at
6000
pounds gross vehicle weight
or less.
0138-0375
2
average standard by certifying vehicles to any combination of
conventional vehicle, TLEV, LEV, ULEV,
and
ZEV
standards.
However, the percentage requirements for ZEVs are mandatory,
although manufacturers can
meet
these
ZEV
requirements
with
emission
credits.
(P.C.!
35;
Lx.
26B,
Tab 5.)
I
recognize
that
there
are
uncertainties
associated
with
the
California
LEV
program.
However,
I
agree
with
the
Chicago
Lung
ASsociation
and
the
Sierra
Club
that
these uncertainties
do
not
justify
inaction.
Mobile
sources
account
for
a
large
percentage
of
volatile
organic
compounds
(VOC)
and nitrogen
oxides
(BOX),
which
are
ozone
precursors.
It is apparent
that
in
order
to
achieve
attainment
with
the
ozone
standard,
-
there
will
have
to
be
some
regulation
of
mobile sources.
I believe
that the
California
LEV
program
will
help
achieve
attainment
while
imposing
a
relatively
minimal
burden
on
consumers.
The
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(Agency)
estimates
that
implementing
the
LEV
program
in
model year.(*~)
-1996
will
result
in
VOC
reductions
in
the
Chicago
area
of 6000~*o
aooo
tons
.~per
year
(TPY)
,
-
or
sixteen
to
twenty-three
tons. p.r
day .(TPD) by the
year
201O.~
-(Lx.
45
at xi, xiv, 7—37.)
The
~
progrsa’vould
result in estimated Box
reductions
in the
Chicago
area-of
7000
to
9700
TPY,
or
twenty
to
twenty—six
TPD by
the year
2010.
(Lx. 45
at
11.)
This
is
a
reduction
of
about
2
for VOC
-tram
all
sources
in
the
Chicago
area,
and
a 6—8
reduction
of
mobile
source
VOCs.
(Ex.
45
at
xi,
26.)
Statewide, :tba
Agency
estimates
that
the
LEV
program
wo~ild
result in IOC
reductions
of
11,000 to 16,000 TPY
(thirty—one to
forty—three TPD)1~.and
BOx
reductions of 13,000 to 19,000 TPY
(thirty—seven
to
fifty—two
TPD)
by
2010.
(Lx.
45
at
13,
26.)
While
these
are
not
huge
reductions,
in
order
to -reach
attainment
it
will
be
necesiary
to
achieve
all
possible
reductions.
The
Agency
states that
although
the LEV program
would
not
contribute
to the
required
15
reasonable
further
progress
(RFP)
reduction
in
1996,
the
standards
may
contribute
to
the
required
3
additional
RPP
reduction
in
subsequent
years.
(Lx.
45
at
xii,
35.)
In
order.:
to
achieve
these
estimated
reductions,
the
phase-in
of
the
LEV
program
must
begin,
since
the
reductions
are
dependent
upon
fleet
turn—over.
I
see
no
legitimate
reason
to
delay this phase—in.
I
would
also
like
to
address
several other
concerns
raised
by
participants
and
by
other
Board
members.
First,
several
participants
argued
that
the
California
plan
is
not
tailored
to
2
This
estia~te
compares
the
California
LEV
program
with
the
emission
reductions
achieved
by
the
federal
Tier
I
standards.
Because
the
implementation
of
the federal Tier II
standards
in
MY
2004 is only a possibility,
the
Board
cannot
assume
that
only
projected emission reductions
from
that
Tier
II
program
wi.
actually occur.
0138-0375
3
Illinois, and pointed especially to differences in climate.
However,
this
argument assumes
that
the
federal
standards
are in
some
way
tailored
to
Illinois.
That
is
not
the
case.
If
Illinois
does
not
specifically
adopt
the
California
standards,
we
will
continue
to
be
governed
by
the
federal
standards.
Those
federal
standards
were
not
adopted
with
any
consideration
of
Illinois’
situation.
Indeed,
the
federal
standards
which
become
effective
with
model
year
1994
vehicles
are
basically
the
existing
California
“Tier
I”
standards.
Apparently
Congress
believed
that
conditions
in
California,
at
least
as they relate
to
air
pollution,
are
sufficiently analogous to the
rest
of
the
country to justify adoption of California Tier I standards on a
nationwide basis.
The Board should continue this trend by
adopting the California LEV
program.
Second,
the
majority,
and
several
participants,
have
raised
the
concern
that
by
adopting
the California LEV program, Illinois
would basically delegate rulemaking authority, in this area to
California.
This issue is a red
herring.
It is
true that
if
California changes its
LEV
program
in
the
future,
Illinois
(and
any other state which -has adopted
the
LEV program) will have to
decide
whether
to
adopt
those
changes
or to return to whatever
-federal standards exist at that tins.
However, Illinois.will
have
that
choice,
just
as
it
has
that
choice-now.
The
mere
adoption of the LEV program
does
not,
in
any
way, change
Illinois’
options
in
this
area.
I
must
also
point
out
that
because
the
Clean
Air
Act
prohibits
states
other
than
California
from
-
adopting
their
own
motor
vehicle
control
program,
by
not
adopting
the
California
program,
we
are
basically
delegating
rulemaking
in
this
arena
to
the
federal
government.
Third,
there
has
been
discussion
of
the
potential
“problems0
raised
by
the
LEV
program’s
requirement
that
a small number of
electric
vehicles
be
added
to
the
fleet.
I
must
point
out
that
the
Energy
Policy
Act
of
1992
(H.R.
776),recently
passed
by
Congress,
contains a number of incentives for electric vehicles.
Among other things, the Energy Policy Act establishes a 10
percent credit (capped at $4000 per vehicle) for qualified
electric vehicles.
A credit is particularly valuable,
because
a
credit
(as
opposed
to
a
deduction)
saves
100
cents
per
dollar
of
tax
paid.
Incentives
are
being
provided, so that I -have little
doubt that the number
of
electric
vehicles
required by the LEV
program will be available.
Fourth,
I note that the Illinois New Car and Truck Dealers
Association (INC\TDA) has repeatedly stated its objection to this
proposal, fearing that cross—border sales and dealer trades would
be harmed.
However, I believe that adoption of this program
would actually help Illinois dealers, by ending sales by out—of—
state dealers to Illinois residents.
Because the rules would
have allowed only vehicles certified under the LEV program to be
registered in Illinois,
Illinois residents would have to
0138-0377
4
purchase
new
vehicles
at
Illinois dealerships, rather than in
Indiana, Wisconsin, or any of the other states bordering
Illinois.
At
least
two
other
states,
New
York
and
Massachusetts,
have
already adopted the California
LEV
program,
and a
number
of
other
states are moving towards adoption.
I had hoped that Illinois
would be in this
vanguard.
If Illinois, along with California,
New York,
and Massachusetts, adopted the LEV program, those
states would account for a large percentage of vehicle sales, and
perhaps a majority of those sales.
Such
a
situation wou1~go far
in
allaying
manufacturers’
concerns about producing
two different
types
of
vehicles
for
different
states.
-
Perhaps
the
federal
certification procedure could then be changed
so
that
“California
cars” could be sold in “federal” states, and th~whole
country
could benefit from the reduced pollutants
emitted
under
the
LEV
program.
-
I recognize that there are several uncertainties associated
with the LEV program.
However, I believe that. these
uncertainties do not outweigh the value of the program in
reducing air pollution and attaining compliance with the ozone
standard.
I see no good
reason for
further
delay.
-
I would have
continued with the rulemaking process so that the California LEV
program could be adopted in Illinois.
For these reasons, I dissent.
qi
Theodore
Meyer
~bard
Member
I,
Dorothy
M.
Gunn,
Clerk
of
the
Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the .above dissenting opinion
was
filed on the
j~2rJ~
day of
1993
0138-0378
Control
Board