New Calif CARB Board rules for diesels

[82vdub]

Just read in the paper about new rules and regs that the California Air and Resources Board has adopted for big rig diesel engines starting shortly. Sad day for business owners living and working in California.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr121208.htm

[VW Jon]

I can see truckers refusing to drive to California, which for the few that do, will charge big $$ to get stuff shipped there. Everything in California is going to get a lot more expensive.

[lyeinyoureye]

Regulations expected to prevent 9,400 premature deaths, improve air quality and reduce greenhouse gases; more than $1 billion in funding aid available for business owners

Diesel emissions are associated with cancer and exacerbate cardiovascular and respiratory ailments, as do smog-forming emissions. The truck regulation is expected to save 9,400 lives between 2011 and 2025, and greatly reduce health care costs. These benefits have an estimated value of $48 billion to $69 billion. The cost of installing the trailer greenhouse-gas-reducing technologies will be quickly recouped through lower fuel use.

IIRC the emissions standards HD diesels have to deal w/ are the same that our bunnies had to deal w/ in the early 80s, so we're not talking about draconian measures, considering that VW/Bosch did this two decades ago w/ an all mechanical engine and (most of) the diesels in trucks these days are way more advanced. Plus they're offering over a billion to help out w/ retrofitting and the like.

Otoh, if trucking companies don't mind the potential to be held liable for the deaths and billions in lost revenue, they can try to take the state to court. Considering they're the last unregulated emissions source in the state and CA is helping 'em make the transition w/ over a billion buckaroos, I doubt doubt they'll try to seriously challenge it, but it's still a possibility.

[82vdub]

IIRC the emissions standards HD diesels have to deal w/ are the same that our bunnies had to deal w/ in the early 80s, so we're not talking about draconian measures

I think implementing new regulations is a fact that happens, and probably needs to take place. Implementing new regulations on new vehicles being sold is one thing. However.........

The Air Resources Board today adopted two critical regulations directly aimed at cleaning up harmful emissions from the estimated one million heavy-duty diesel trucks that operate in California. Beginning January 1, 2011, the Statewide Truck and Bus rule will require truck owners to install diesel exhaust filters on their rigs, with nearly all vehicles upgraded by 2014. Owners must also replace engines older than the 2010 model year according to a staggered implementation schedule that extends from 2012 to 2022

making a manditory engine replacement effects many more rigs, with much more cost to the owner. No matter how much money the government gives for helping people make this transition, it's going to really hit some hard in the wallet.

[lyeinyoureye]

Of course it will owners hard in the wallet, but the hit won't be nearly as bad as what those rigs would cost the state if left as is, which is the point of the program. Pay five billion over the next couple decades to upgrade rigs instead of losing sixty billion via sickness/death. There was also talk about implementing smog checks for diesels autos w/ OBD-II systems IIRC. Like I said before, owners can take the state to court if they'd like, but the numbers support the state. Do you really think that owners should be able to save a buck at the cost of ten bucks for everyone else?

[surfcam]

I think a lot of rig owners will find it easier just to sell there rig to a state or country that doesn't have these regulations. A lot of states just copy CARB reg's so the market is getting smaller. Alberta doesn't have any regulation that I know of. Just a minimum on new vehicles then no follow-up or checks after that. With the low dollar I can't see a lot coming hear. But if oil goes up the dollar will follow and things will change.

[Fatmobile]

Nope, if oil goes up; the dollar goes down.

[surfcam]

Not in Canada eh. We have a petro currence. Are dollars is around $.80 compared to the U.S. dollar because oil is in the fourties. It was $1.10 when oil was 140 a barrel. 65% of are exports are natural resources.

[lyeinyoureye]

Doesn't the dollar going down mean everything else that's not just U.S. based goes up?

[Fatmobile]

Ahhh, the Canadian dollar get's better when the American dollar falls,.. partly because you have all those oil sands.

Yeah, those trucking companies will probably sell their old trucks out of state.
Hopefully they didn't speed up their rotation too much and jack up their expenses,.. they probably update to newer truck periodically anyway.

[82vdub]

The dollar trades against other countries currencies and is not tied to oil, in the terms it's been mentioned here. The price of oil does not effect the dollar, but the value of the dollar does effect the price of oil, since oil is traded in dollars. That's one of the reasons why it was so expensive a few months ago, and it somewhat cheaper now. A few months ago, the US dollar was really low in value and was pretty even with the Canadian dollar, but now the value of the US dollar has increased against the Canadian dollar. Just because the dollar value goes up or down, doesn't mean that a particular value of another countries curriency went the opposite direction. For example, on any given day, the value of the dollar can fall against the Euro, but rise against the Yen.

For the subject of this topic, I think that this legislation has more far reaching effects on California trucking companies than we (or at least I) can think of. I believe that most large rigs are continuously rebuilt to keep them on the roads. They are not traded in every few years to get a new model like people do with cars. That's part of the reason why Calif has enacted this legislation, to essentially get them off the road. Just think about the poor business owner that just bought a 2007 rig for $90k and now finds that he's got to replace the engine in his rig in a few years with a 2010 or newer engine. That just drove up the cost of his purchase. Just think of the trucking company that owns 20 rigs. To replace them all with $90k rigs when some of them still have payments on them is big bucks, and budget busters for a companies bottom line.

I personally don't like legislation like this for a couple reasons.
1) It's likely going to force companies to push off buying new rigs until after the 2010 model year so that they don't have to replace their new engine in a few years. This is going to tank the big rig industry for a year or two, adding additional lower demand on this industry from this legislation. It's also going to be a boon to the big rig manufacturer in a few years.
2) it forces companies to buy new equipment or equip their old equipment when they may not necessarily be able to absorb the costs of these changes in their business profile. These rigs are expensive, and businesses just don't have the extra $90k per unit to just go buy new rigs every couple years.
3) there's something in the building industry (and somewhat in the auto industry) as the grandfather clause. If it met codes and regulations when it was built, then by that fact, it is grandfathered into meeting current regulations even though it does not meet the most current standards. Thus, our 1983 VW's are legal because they were legal when they were built. However, they are not legal to today's emissions standards etc. I believe it should be up to the owner of that vehicle if they decide to upgrade to something that's newer technology, not forced into it by legislation.

[lyeinyoureye]

I seriously doubt CA is doing this to promote new truck sales. Like you said, many trucks are just rebuilt instead of replaced, and the emissions from a two stroke detriot diesel in a gravel truck aren't anywhere near what every other emissions source, even lawnmower engines and wood stoves, have to comply w/, well at least until now.

In terms of 1) I imagine that this will be offset by the recession anyway, since during a recession sales of everything go down, so CA's timing with this actually minimizes any potential drop in sales compared to doing it when the economy is booming.

In terms of 2), those rig owners have been forcing the rest of the state to pay for billions due to health problems/deaths at a 1:10 business to state ratio. If you think it's fair the state has to loose ten dollars just so those businesses can save one, why not put your money where your mouth and doing something for someone else that costs you ten bucks and saves them a buck. Sure, you may have to pay a bit more, but it'd be the same situation.

In terms of 3) the grandfather clause doesn't apply to public domain stuff. Since business is not strictly private, it's partially public, and is causing excessive costs to the public, CA feels they need to regulate it in this respect. My VW diesel won't ever be smogged just like a pre-75 car won't ever be smogged, because those are both solely in the private domain, but large trucks that by their very nature are registered as business vehicles are in the public domain. They can't dump whatever they want into the air for the same reason they can't dump whatever they want into the water or onto my front yard.

[82vdub]

I agree that I don't believe they are doing it to promote truck sales, however.

I'm not sure how the timing of this is good to cooincide with a recession. If I ran a big rig business and I knew that anything I bought between now and 2011 would need it's engine replaced shortly after buying it, I'd certainly delay my purchases as much as I could. I can only see the big rig sales until 2010 depressed in the Calif area from a ruling like this.

I'm not sold on death and cost studies either. I think if you took all the studies of people that died from breast cancer, lung cancer, heart attacks, diabetes, and every other study, you'd have 3-4x as many deaths as was actual. The studies are skewed, and I'm not sure how you can say that someone died of this or that because of this or that. There are so many factors that I'd say it's virtually impossible to really know the truth. I'd say that Calif's costs for health issues is WAY elevated because of illegals.

BTW, businesses don't pay taxes. Sure, they write the checks to pay for the actual tax bills, but if a business is profitable in each given year, the consumer pays all the taxes. It's better to be the business than it is to be the consumer, tax speaking. You can say to have the business owner pay a little more taxes for this and that, but you're just driving up your own costs in the end. Also, I'm not a person that's sold on the concept of "just pay a little more" and it'll fix the problem. For things like welfare, clean air, this and that, we've been sold that bill of goods since governmental taxes were imposed, and nothing's changed much in that time.

[lyeinyoureye]

AFAIK the engines don't need to be replaced, just meet emissions regs. So for most rigs on the road we're looking at an ECU/ECM recalibration and maybe a DPF fitted on the exhaust. Some businesses will have to buy totally new rigs, but w/ an average lifespan of ~8 years most won't. And there are state incentives as well as loans to help out w/ any improvements as well as new trucks. I've never heard what you said about studies but if ya got proof feel free to share. Having more deaths due to cancer than there are total deaths per year would be a pretty big tip-off as to whether something is flat out wrong.

In terms of taxes, there have been huge strides in at the very least AQ. W/o CARB's mandates the air in the southern california region would be awful. What's really interesting is that this is even shown on an area to area level. CARB has different testing zones that correspond to different population densities, weather, etc...associated w/ pollution. Their dyno base smog program is so effective that the inland areas have about the same amount of pollution than some of the remote desert areas even though there's more wind out in the desert and wayyy lower population density, mostly because there are no smog checks in the desert and the ones that are present are only two speed idle as opposed to a dyno test. So it's not like they aren't effective, just that they kick in regulations once pollution hits a certain level, so people won't see a dramatic improvement after pollution levels have stabilized so to speak, but they also won't see things getting worse and may see a slight/steady increase.

In terms of CA healthcare costs for illegals, who knows. They provide under the table work at way less than minimum, so the question is do we have to pay more for services than we save via lower wages/no benefits. My guess is it's positive for the state when we look at it's wealth compared to other states that don't have as many illegal immigrants to take advantage of, but I'm no economist so like I said, who knows.

[JamesW]

Whether you like it or not, clean air costs money, but alot less than the costs of dirty air like; cancer, lung and heart heart, air purifiers for your house, loss of athletic ability (like walking up stairs, playing a game of tag with your kid, or jogging for your health), reduced IQ (remember lead in gas), etc.

I'm not a fan of regulation, but the industry doesn't seem to have stepped up to the plate, regulated themselves and made this not an issue.

I will support clean air..... it's important

They have also found that smog makes it rain more on the weekends... I'm not kidding... At the end of the work week, there is enough extra low hanging particulate matter that it's easier for water droplets consolidate and form precipitation making the weekend rainy...

~james