Information and Resources

Smell the Roses, Not the Fuel

May 17, 2000 (Washington) -- The Clinton administration Wednesday proposed new requirements that it claimed would dramatically clean up the diesel fuel and emissions of all the nation's trucks and buses.

Carol Browner, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), told reporters that the new rules would be equivalent to removing the pollution generated by 13 million of today's trucks. Under the proposal, she added, diesel buses would run "at least as clean" as today's natural gas buses.

Wednesday's announcement, in the works for months, pleased environmental advocates. Frank O'Donnell, executive director of the Clean Air Trust, tells WebMD, "It's the biggest and most sweeping attempt to clean up trucks and buses in the 30-year history of the EPA."

The EPA's proposal would begin taking effect in mid-2006 for diesel fuel, although all of its emissions provisions for new diesel engines would not be in place until the year 2010. The proposed rules would require a 90% reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions, a key factor in smog. They would cut soot, or diesel particles, by 95%. The EPA's plan also would chop sulfur levels in diesel fuel by 97%.

Cleaner fuel and emissions will mean healthier air and lungs for Americans; Browner noted that smog and soot are linked with 15,000 deaths and 400,000 asthma attacks each year. Soot also may contribute to lung cancer. Earlier this week, an annual report from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) listed it for the first time as a substance "reasonably anticipated" to cause cancer.

If the proposal is carried out, "It will prevent probably tens of thousands of excess cancers," says William Becker, executive director of the national association that represents local and state pollution control officials.

The nation's automakers and diesel engine manufacturers also support the rule. Glenn Keller, spokesman for the Engine Manufacturers Association, tells WebMD, "We want to be able to compete in the marketplace and not be hampered by cleanliness comparisons to gasoline or natural gas."

But the oil industry, led by the American Petroleum Institute, argued Wednesday that the plan would "seriously harm consumers of diesel fuel, and, ultimately, the nation's economy." In a joint statement, the groups claimed the EPA's plan "will be extremely costly and could limit essential fuel supplies."

The petroleum groups said that they would do everything they could to convince the EPA and the American public that the proposal should be abandoned.

Many trucking groups also oppose the rule. In a statement, the American Trucking Associations claimed the rule "would force many in our industry off the road. The U.S. economy can't afford to pay this high a price." But the California Trucking Association said it endorsed the EPA's rule; California trucks already must meet a higher clean diesel standard.

According to Browner, the rule would increase diesel fuel costs by three to four cents per gallon and engine costs by $1,500 to $2,000 per large truck. But the institute said that it believes fuel cost increases could easily be double or triple the EPA's estimate.

The petroleum institute has offered to reduce sulfur in diesel fuel by 90%, but Browner said that the 97% cut was crucial both for cleaner air and to allow engine emission control devices to work in future diesel engines. Noting that the requirements wouldn't start kicking in for six years, Browner added, "We are providing a lot of time and flexibility."

The EPA will hold five public hearings on the rule around the country, and it intends to finalize the plan before President Clinton leaves office.