ON THE ROAD TO CLEANER AIR.

Today's cars pollute a lot less than they did a decade ago, but because there are so many more of them on the roads, our air is in jeopardy. EPA has a 25-year plan for cleaner cars and cleaner gasoline.

Driving the car to work is probably the biggest environmental sin each of us commits every day. Count yourself doubly sinful if you operate a four-wheel-drive sports utility vehicle because they pollute at least twice as much. The automobile--a source of individual pride and symbol of American freedom--is a prime culprit in fouling the environment that most of us say we want to protect.

But don't our cars pollute significantly less than they did 10 years ago, and just a fraction of the amount they did 25 years ago? The answer to this is a resounding yes. But more motorists on the road have wiped out many of the gains in pollution-cutting technologies, especially when it comes to smog. The bottom line is a steady, but overwhelming, increase in the total miles Americans drive each year. Now the federal government has set a schedule for raising tailpipe pollution standards to new levels of cleanliness over the next 25 years.

CLEANING UP CARS THROUGH 2025

The Environmental Protection Agency's new regulation, finalized at the very end of 1999, requires automobiles to run cleaner and gasoline to burn cleaner. The agency says these changes will reduce emissions by 77 percent below cars on the road today.

"We looked at emissions under current standards and knew we could do better--especially with the heavier vehicles," says Bob Perciasepe, assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Air and Radiation. "Without these changes, we would backslide to the dirty air that we worked so hard to clean."

For the first time ever, sports utility vehicles, pickup trucks and minivans will be forced to meet the same pollution standards as smaller passenger cars. Emissions from these larger vehicles will be reduced by 95 percent.

Policy wonks refer to the new regulation as "Tier II" because it is the second round of across-the-board tailpipe pollution reductions under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Tier I standards took effect in 1994, and the Clean Air Act called for a decision on stricter standards by Dec. 31, 1999. Tier II requires specific limitations on hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides, the exhaust pollutants that morph into smog in the hot sunshine. Auto manufacturers will have until 2004 before Tier II kicks in, and till 2009 before every new passenger vehicle must meet the standard.

Delegate James Hubbard is active on air quality issues in the Maryland General Assembly and met with EPA administrator Carol Browner during the agency's consideration of the Tier II regulation. "These regulations are fair. I told Administrator Browner that it wasn't just regulators who supported stricter tailpipe standards or the executive branch of state government. Many state legislators felt as strongly as the regulators did."

Not all legislators are as optimistic about Tier II; some are taking a more cautious approach to the regulation. "What Tier II will achieve for air quality is not absolutely clear," says Representative Warren Chisum of Texas, "We'll have to wait and see."

Tier II will combat air pollution by regulating both vehicles and gasoline. In addition to the stricter tailpipe rules, there will be a new fuel standard that limits sulfur content in gasoline. Sulfur clogs up catalytic converters, and most auto manufacturers claim it would be nearly impossible to meet the new tailpipe standards without decreasing sulfur in gas. Currently, gasoline sold outside of California generally contains sulfur levels of 300 parts per million (ppm). The new rule will require refiners to limit sulfur to a 30 ppm average with a maximum content of 80 ppm by 2006, although certain Western states and small refiners will be given extra time to make the changes.

Automobile and engine manufacturers, fuel refiners, and health and environmental interests were actively involved in working with EPA and helped arrive at the final decision on new pollution and fuel standards.

"On balance, we support the goals that EPA has laid out," says Josephine Cooper, president of the Alliance of Auto Manufacturers. "Tier II is a formidable technical challenge for auto manufacturers, but it's a workable rule."

EPA's decision to compose a regulation that affects both automobiles and gasoline standards led to bickering between the two industries about sharing the burden. The automobile manufacturers argued for lower sulfur standards in gasoline while the oil industry contended that the regulation would cause higher gasoline prices and that it could drive small refiners out of business.

Environmentalists and public health advocates were generally thrilled with the move. "Tier II is absolutely essential to reaching the promise of clean air outlined in the Clean Air Act," says Ernest P. Franck, president of the American Lung Association. "It will dramatically reduce air pollution and protect millions of American--everyone will breathe easier."

The federal government is also targeting other major ozone sources to cut pollution, especially coal-burning power plants, but EPA believes the new tailpipe regulations will reduce ozone-forming pollution by 3 million tons per year, the equivalent of removing 166 million cars from the road.

THE STATE OF SMOG

Los Angeles has long been known as the smog king. Its sprawling freeways are covered with crawling vehicles whose tailpipe pollution wafts into a smoggy air stew that is trapped over the city by the unique geographic conditions of the LA valley.

In the mid-1950s, ozone pollution reached an all-time peak of 0.68 ppm in Los Angeles, a figure that astonishes many air pollution officials today. The current national health standard is 0.12 ppm.

It wasn't until 1976 that California began to consistently track pollution levels. In 1977, the state recorded 208 days when the air exceeded the smog health standard of 0.12 ppm. Public health warnings were issued on 121 days when the air contained ozone in excess of 0.20 ppm. Many of those 121 days reached into the "hazardous" category.

"Since the late 1970s, air quality in Los Angeles has been improving steadily," says Sam Atwood, a spokesman for California's South Coast Air Quality Management District, "and 1999 was really a watermark year." Although smog levels exceeded the health standard 42 days (which is not something many would boast about), for the first year since before World War II, LA did not have pollution greater than 0.20 ppm, the point at which the government starts issuing warnings.

Another change in 1999: For the first time, Los Angeles didn't have the most severe air pollution. Houston did.

"We've got a serious air problem in Houston and in Dallas," says Representative Chisum, who chairs the House Committee on Environmental Regulation. "Weather conditions, poor rainfall, high population growth and more cars on the road" have made the smog problem more severe, he says.

If Los Angeles is the smog king, Houston is the prince, sending its asthmatic children home coughing and wheezing more often than any other urban area in 1999.

"We've had explosive population growth. Weather also plays a big part in ozone formation, " says Bill Jordan, an air quality official with the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission. "LA had a good year meteorologically, Houston did not."

The warmer the temperatures, the quicker smog forms in the air. Rain and wind can move pollution out of an urban area. Houston's air was warm and stagnant this past summer.

Other ozone "hot spots" include Atlanta, Baton Rouge, Chicago, Dallas-Fort Worth, El Paso, Milwaukee-Racine and Phoenix. Each of these cities is deemed a "serious" violator of the Clean Air Act. Nationwide, 32 areas violated ozone health standards in 1999; 100 million people breathed unhealthy air.

CHRONIC TROUBLES IN THE NORTHEAST

The Northeast struggles with chronic ozone troubles. Dense populations and the relatively close proximity of major urban areas create perplexing pollution problems throughout the region. The New York-New Jersey area, Baltimore, Greater Connecticut, Philadelphia, Springfield, Mass., and Washington, D.C., have serious smog troubles. Many other areas continually record unhealthy amounts of air pollution and are out of compliance with the Clean Air Act.

The chances of Northeastern states meeting the act's requirements are "very small," says Representative Jeff MacGillivray, an MIT-trained physicist and New Hampshire legislator who specializes in air quality issues. "Parts of the Northeast, for example most of Connecticut, still have ozone far in excess of the standard and are now past their 1999 attainment date, Reaching attainment in mobile source-dominated areas by the 2005-2007 time frame is extremely unlikely and by 2015 will be difficult."

Northeastern states have complained for years that the ozone problem is not entirely their fault. Most experts agree that ozone is carried by prevailing winds; just how far it is carried is a hotly debated question. Many states in the Northeast have pointed the finger at sources in upwind states (on their western borders and beyond) and made the claim that they will never satisfy the Clean Air Act with the amount of smog that currently blows into their state--no matter what they do to limit their own pollution.

"Air pollution crosses state borders, just like water contaminants do," says Delegate Hubbard. "It is incumbent upon each state to take responsibility for the pollution it creates."

It's an unwelcome accusation to many Midwestern and Southeastern states. While the air quality models suggest that ozone certainly travels, it is not an exact science. The idea of imposing stricter regulations at the request of states on the East Coast is not well received.

"To say that we are responsible for the Northeast violating the Clean Air Act is not looking at the bigger picture," says Indiana Senator Beverly Gard, a former chemist who chairs the Senate Environmental Affairs Committee. "We will work with our neighboring states, and we may be able to help Illinois. But does Indiana pollution reach New York? Probably not."

The EPA believes that regional solutions are necessary in the eastern United States. "Controlling ozone on a regional scale is a major challenge," says the EPA's Perciasepe. "There's no doubt that this pollution travels from state to state. Regional efforts are necessary to make progress on reducing ozone."

Recently, an EPA plan to address ozone on a regional scale was overturned by a federal appeals court. The court rejected a 1999 ozone regulation, issued to 22 states east of the Mississippi River and the District of Columbia. The court questioned the constitutional authority of EPA to set national air standards. An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is likely.

AUTOMOBILES AND SMOG

In adopting the Tier II regulation, EPA is trying to address the pervasive smog problem by limiting automobile pollution in a way that individual states cannot. It is a federal regulation for obvious reasons--differing tailpipe standards for each state would be a regulatory nightmare for Detroit's auto manufacturers. State air officials support Tier II because they need reduced pollution from cars and trucks to complement the controls on factories, power plants and other sources that they can tailor to their specific situation.

California is an exception to this rule. The state is allowed to adopt stricter tailpipe standards than the rest of the country because of its unique and severe air quality problems. Since 1990, California's automobiles have produced less pollution and helped the state progress toward cleaner air. Under federal law, states have the choice of following the national standards or choosing the California program.

Texas is looking to automobiles to help resolve its smog problems. "We're thinking of using the California car program," says Texas air official Jordan. "There's no way that Houston will comply with federal standards unless we take some drastic measures on automobiles." Although the federal Tier II and California's program are very similar, Jordan says, "We've compared the two programs and believe we may achieve a few more benefits in the long-term, years 2010 to 2025, with the California option."

States adopting California vehicle pollution standards raise the ire of the automobile industry. "We strongly discourage it. Tier II is very aggressive, and we hope EPA will make it a 49-state program," says Cooper.

Requiring cleaner automobiles is something that many in the Northeast have pursued for quite some time. New York, Massachusetts and Vermont have adopted the California program and Maine will do so this year. When states began considering California car standards in recent years, a voluntary agreement was forged with several auto manufacturers. The result was introduction of cleaner cars (although not as clean as the Tier II standards) in 1999 in Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia and the District of Columbia. The agreement is scheduled to be extended to all states, other than those already with California cars, in 2001 (a Tier 1.5, so to speak).

"Smog is not going to go away unless we clean up our vehicles," says Maryland Delegate Hubbard. "It's that simple. We have to continually find ways to reduce pollution through mobile and stationary sources."

A NEW CENTURY, A NEW GASOLINE

"We need world class fuel for our world class vehicles," says Gary Smith of Ford Motor Company. Major auto manufacturers such as Ford have been in favor of reducing sulfur in gasoline for years. Sulfur clogs the systems that cleanse pollution created during gasoline use.

"We have known for some time that the technology exists to cut these pollutants, but gasoline across the country contains too much sulfur," says Jerry Martin, a spokesman for the California Air Resources Board. "Auto manufacturers have had to hold off on introducing cleaner engines because of our gasoline."

According to the American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry was disappointed that EPA didn't give them a more flexible schedule to test advanced fuel refining technologies, but acknowledged that Tier II would improve air quality. Before the rule was finalized, fuel refiners voiced concern over the costs of the regulation and warned that motorists could expect a price hike for low-sulfur gas.

California reconfigured its gasoline requirements in June 1996. And on the whole, there have been few problems according to Jeff Wilson, a spokesman for the Western States Petroleum Association. "It's important to note, however, that our industry has spent $6 billion to meet these gas requirements," he says. California's sulfur requirements are exactly the same as required nationwide under Tier II.

The price of the new gasoline has not been prohibitive. "Prior to 1996, we estimated that the sulfur requirement would lead to an 8- to 15-cent increase per gallon. It came in at eight cents and quickly dropped to three cents per gallon," says Martin. "We've had problems from time to time, but, if the entire country is producing the low sulfur gas, it's less likely that there will be a supply shortage."

California is not the only state to have considered the cleaner gasoline, others have experimented with sulfur requirements during the summer ozone season. Atlanta, for example, has required gasoline to contain sulfur at a 150 ppm average in the past. Last session, North Carolina adopted the low sulfur fuel requirements before EPA made its decision. Representative Joe Hackney sponsored the legislation and his comments attest to the responsibility and leadership states are willing to take in achieving clean air.

"We wanted to send a message to EPA that low sulfur fuel is needed," he says "If it wasn't going to be required nationwide, we were going to have cleaner burning gasoline in North Carolina."

Jeff Dale is NCSL's expert on clean air issues.

KEEPING DIRTY VEHICLES OFF THE ROAD

One reason automobiles contribute significantly to smog is that their emission control systems often fail to perform. Sometimes the failure is a result of age and deterioration or just a poor state of tune. The safety net to catch these vehicles is emissions inspection programs--in place in urban areas or statewide in over 35 states.

State legislatures played critical roles in establishing these programs throughout the past decade. Many states found vehicle testing to be a sensitive political issue and are continually re-evaluating their programs to offer convenient services at affordable costs. The advanced emissions tests now simulate driving conditions by placing vehicles on devices that rotate wheels to check for pollution at various speeds.

Although the great majority of vehicles pass without a hitch, these tests are required so that states can maintain some knowledge of pollution levels from the entire fleet and to catch the few vehicles that spew sickening amounts of pollution. According to EPA a major portion of smog-forming pollution is released from these super-dirty cars where pollution control systems have failed.

Mandatory inspection programs conducted at centralized testing stations may not be in use for the long term. A new technology called "remote sensing" scans tailpipes and license plates as they pass through heavily used intersections. It has been tested for over five years, and its results increasingly are being accepted by government entities.

EPA issued changes to state requirements in the fall of 1999 for vehicle inspection programs that allow increased use of alternative forms of emissions testing--most common of which is remote sensing.

TOP SELLING SUVS ARE BIG POLLUTERS

A trend that has increased automobile pollution nationwide is the explosive popularity of four-wheel-drive sports utility vehicles. Because they first were classified as work vehicles, they were not required to meet as strict emissions requirements as passenger vehicles. But SUVs today are the hottest vehicles on the market and are used by commuters and soccer moms alike. Sales have risen from less than 200,000 in 1975 to nearly 3 million in 1999 and now comprise nearly 20 percent of new sales. Unfortunately, a typical SUV produces three to five times as much pollution as a passenger car.

Minivans and pickup trucks also have increased their share of the passenger vehicle market, and they also have been allowed to pollute more then smaller cars. Since 1975, the popularity of minivans helped double the market share of the van category from 5 percent to 10 percent. Pickup trucks have jumped from 13 percent to 16 percent. Taken together with SUVs, these heavier, high-polluting vehicles now comprise nearly 50 percent of new sales.

These trends in consumer tastes also are responsible for dropping the fuel economy (average miles per gallon for vehicles on the road) to its lowest point since 1980. Tier 2 requires SUVs, minivans and pickup trucks to meet standards identical to smaller passenger vehicles, although auto manufacturers will be given more time to comply.

CALIFORNIA'S STRICTER STANDARDS PAY OFF

The one exception to national auto standards is California. Because of its unique pollution problems, California has its own standards for automobiles. Its low emissions vehicle program has helped the state make slow, but steady, improvements in air quality. This is not lost on the EPA.

Many have noted the similarity of the new federal requirements to California's clean car program. "Their II is pretty much based on our standards," says Jerry Martin, a spokesman for the California Air Resources Board. "Ours has a slightly faster timetable, but it's a comparable program."

The most challenging component of California's program, and one that EPA did not include in Tier II, is a fast approaching mandate for zero emissions vehicles (ZEVs)--automobiles that do not pollute. The only vehicles currently in that category are electric cars. Beginning in 2003, 10 percent of all vehicles offered for sale in California must not release pollution into the air. Some are skeptical that the state will stick to this mandate, because it retreated from its original plan to begin requiring these vehicles in 1998.

"We've made significant relative improvements in air quality," says California Senator Tom Hayden, a resident of Los Angeles. "But our air is still dirty, and it will continue to plague us if we do not move forward."

Hayden warns against becoming satisfied with our air because it is cleaner that it was 20 years ago. "We mustn't rest on our success," he says.