Man Bites Dog: Industry Group Prefers EPA Regulation to DOT
Posted June 25, 2009 at 8:44 am 
Filed in: Even as farm groups and farm district representatives have been battling in the House of Representatives to ensure that the USDA, rather than EPA, is in charge of agricultural offsets in the House climate change bill, the heavy-duty engine sector of the economy is pushing to have EPA rather than DOT regulate them. Inside EPA (www.insideepa.com) is this morning reporting that:
“Engine makers are strongly supporting an amendment added late to the Waxman-Markey climate change bill that would grant EPA authority to set greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards for heavy-duty diesel engines, possibly superseding a process already under way for the Department of Transportation (DOT) to set first-time fuel economy standards for the engines.”
The DOT regulatory effort is underway pursuant to the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), in which Congress, for the first time in 20+ years, increased fuel economy standards across the board (http://energy.senate.gov/public/_files/getdoc1.pdf).
Now, apparently, engine makers would rather have EPA as their lead regulator because of their past working relationship with the agency and “because EPA will be able to consider GHG-reduction options beyond engine modifications, such as aerodynamics and tires, which could make it easier for the industry to meet the standard.”
This is all mildly interesting, because the portion of EISA that called for regulating heavy-duty engines, Section 102, gave quite a bit of leeway to first the National Academy of Sciences, and then DOT, to consider “the range of factors, including, without limitation, design, functionality, use, duty cycle, infrastructure, and total overall energy consumption and operating costs that affect commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle and work truck fuel efficiency.” Seems like aerodynamics and tires ought to fit into something that requires a range of factors “without limitation” to be considered, but perhaps we’re missing something.
This may all be much ado about nothing since the Waxman-Markey language, approved by the Energy & Commerce Committee on a voice vote on its last day of markup, requires EPA to establish standards by the end of 2010 “that reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction available through the application of technology which the administrator determines will be available for the model year to which such standards apply, giving appropriate consideration to cost, energy and safety factors.”
At the same time, the bill says that “nothing in this section shall affect or otherwise increase or diminish the authority of the secretary of Transportation to adopt regulations to improve the overall fuel efficiency of the commercial goods movement system.”
What this sets up is a situation similar to the fuel economy and greenhouse gas reduction efforts on light-duty vehicles. There, EPA and NHTSA recently announced they would develop separate GHG vehicle rules that mandate the same requirement. Does that really make sense? Is it duplicative and, well, overly bureaucratic? Or is it a case of agencies teaming to bring their separate but complementary expertise to bear? Time will tell.
Previous Post
May 21, 2012
May 11, 2012
April 30, 2012
