National Alternative Fuels Association

NAFA vs. EPA
Summary of NAFA v U.S. EPA, Docket No. 00-1147

1. 1. First Do No Harm: EPA's New Rules Will Worsen Smog, CEI November 10, 1999, "EPA's own evidence relied upon to support its [NOx Reduction] rule shows that smog will increase in some urban centers, and decline mostly in rural areas. The real result will be increased pollution precisely where populations are concentrated." Also see http://www.junkscience.com/aug99/tier2let.htm
   
   
   
   2. Emissions Down, Smog Up. Say What? By Steven F. Hayward, Joel Schwartz, January 20, 2004, "[A] disproportionate number of exceedances of the ozone standard are occurring on weekends, when emissions of ozone-forming chemicals--especially NOx--are down anywhere from 10 to 40 percent…" Damn the Science, Full Speed Ahead, By Joel Schwartz, 8/20/03, "Recent modeling studies have concluded that NOx reductions … would increase ozone levels in many major cities, including New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, southern California, and the San Francisco Bay area… Admitting that NOx reductions have become detrimental to ozone control would be a major embarrassment for both EPA and CARB. Both agencies have promulgated stringent regulations that will eliminate most NOx emissions from automobiles and diesel trucks during the next 20 to 30 years, as the fleet turns over to vehicles built to the tougher standards… Therein lies another irony: When EPA in 1999 promulgated a rule requiring a 90 percent reduction in NOx emissions from automobiles, the agency's own analysis concluded that the rule would increase ozone in many areas of the country."^4-12
   
   
   
   3. After the rule's promulgation, Congress voiced concern over the apparent EPA's err,¹³ "[T]he Agency may have failed to conduct sufficient analyses of the potential negative health impacts … including the effect of reducing NOx emissions in areas of the country that are VOC-limited, such that ozone levels respond more to reductions in VOC's than to NOx reductions."
   
   
2. EPA justifies its National Rule based solely upon the test results of a "single" vehicle, which EPA modified prior to testing.



1. See A REVIEW OF APPENDIX B OF THE U.S. EPA REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR TIER 2 VEHICLE EMISSION STANDARDS AND GASOLINE SULFUR CONTROL REQUIREMENTS, 6/5/2000, Southwest Research Institute¹⁴, "It was concluded that methodology used by EPA was faulty and that the data used did not support the conclusion that emissions from Tier 2 vehicles were irreversible… Emissions data from only four vehicles were used to define the Tier 2… The four vehicles were an SUV, a pickup and two minivans…. The SUV [vehicle] emissions were weighted to represent 2/3 of the final estimate… The SUV was a Ford Expedition modified by EPA to meet Tier 2 regulations prior to testing at the EPA lab in Ann Arbor, Michigan."
.


2. EPA's forced its results to meet a predetermined conclusion. See DECLARATION OF MELVIN N. INGALLS, "[T]here is the distinct impression that the purpose of the evaluation was to produce an average reversibility for Tier 2 vehicles in the Final Rule that was as close as possible to the average reversibility presented in the NPRM. In other words, the EPA's evaluation of the new data was not objective and was made in a way to present a predetermined conclusion."



3. EPA hid its science and only presented it in the regulation "after the fact" -- after it was too late for the public to comment on it.


3. EPA grossly understated the true cost of the regulation,
1. Estimates of the true cost may be upwards to $.50/gal according to some sources
1. Transcript of NPR segment, Interview: Philip Verleger [Former Carter Official] discusses the price of oil, "August 23, 2004, Mr. VERLEGER: Well, there are two phases. From March to July, [crude oil] prices were pulled up by gasoline. The US has instituted new regulations requiring that sulfur be removed from gasoline, and the refiners in the United States and the world just don't have enough capacity to make gasoline to meet demand, so gasoline prices rose by 50 cents and they pulled up crude oil."
2. The regulation will cost industry (refineries/automotive) and consumers hundreds of billions dollars.¹⁵ Unfortunately, the cost to motoring consumers will grow indefinitely thereafter, because:
1. Foreign refiners are less able to manufacture the expensive mandated low sulfur gasoline, severely limiting importation of competing foreign gasoline.
2. The regulation has forced a consolidation of the US refining industry, which has not seen a new refinery built in over two decades.
1. "Announced refinery closures represent approximately 335,000 bbl/d of total US refining capacity (2% of total U.S. capacity), which can be broken out as 170,000 bbl/d of gasoline production (2% of U.S. gasoline demand)," See SIMMONS & COMPANY INTERNATIONAL, Energy Industry Research, February 25, 2003, Impacts Of Tier II Implementation On The Supply And Deliverability Of Gasoline And Diesel Fuel
3. Independent refiners, which could not make the huge investment under the regulation have called it quits. This means a consolidation of refinery capacity and puts more power over less gasoline in fewer hands. All the while gasoline demand increases at an estimated annual rate of 1-2%.


3. Remaining refiners will produce less gasoline.
1. "We expect implementation of Tier II will result in a 1.5% reduction in the amount of gasoline produced by existing refineries… In aggregate, we expect domestic gasoline production to be decreased by almost 1million barrels per week by 2006," See SIMMONS & COMPANY INTERNATIONAL, Energy Industry Research, February 25, 2003, Impacts Of Tier II Implementation On The Supply And Deliverability Of Gasoline And Diesel Fuel


4. Thus, higher prices and fuel shortages can be expected.



5. Detroit has been forced to make substantial investment in new emission control technology in order to comply with the Tier II regulations, which adds a significant extra cost to each new vehicle.


4. EPA ignored other viable less costly solutions, which could have easily resolved the stated ozone problem, including for example:



1. Eliminating high polluting vehicles from the road.
1. It is known that a disproportionately small percent of the existing vehicle pool, normally older/poorly maintained vehicles, contribute to the vast majority of all mobile (vehicular) source air pollution.
2. Remote sensing technologies exist that can easily identify these vehicles. Owners could then be directed to repair or retire their "high polluting" vehicles.
3. Eliminating these vehicles would have been significantly more effective, more timely and much less costly¹⁶


2. b. EPA also ignored (substantially less expensive) alternative fuel and other technologies that were readily able to meet the regulation's stated purpose.¹⁷

Court Documents: (PDF)

SwRI Report - "A REVIEW OF APPENDIX B OF THE U.S. EPA REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR TIER 2 VEHICLE EMISSION STANDARDS AND GASOLINE SULFUR CONTROL REQUIREMENTS," Southwest Research Institute, June 5th 2000 (SwRI Report).
Initial Brief - (11.5 MB)
Reply Brief - (9.8 MB)
Paul Grant's Declaration - (885 KB)
Mel Ingalls' Declaration - (11.3 MB)



¹ A challenge to the EPA's "Tier 2 Vehicle & Gasoline Sulfur Program,"

² For definition of Ozone see http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&as_qdr=all&oi=defmore&q=define:Ozone

³ Unlike other pollutants, ozone is not directly released into the atmosphere, but is created through a complex series of reactions involving NOx and volatile organic compounds (VOC's) in the presence of sunlight. EPA simplistically characterizes NOx as an ozone precursor, and thus implies that all NOx reductions always yield ozone reductions. This is not accurate since because both NOx and VOC emissions have already been reduced under the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments. Thus, the further reduction of NOx provided as provided in the 1999 regulation only serves to worsen matters. In fact, the National Academy of Sciences has concluded that "NOx reductions can have either a beneficial or detrimental effect on ozone concentrations, depending on the locations and emissions rates of VOC and NOx sources in a region."

⁴ Heuss, J. M. et al. "Weekday/Weekend Ozone Differences: What Can We Learn from Them," Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 53, pp. 772-788 (2003).

⁵ Lawson, D. R. "The Weekend Effect--the Weekly Ambient Emissions Control Experiment," Environmental Manager, pp. 17-25 (July 2003).

⁶ Fujita, E. M. et al. "Evolution of the Magnitude and Spatial Extent of the Weekend Ozone Effect in California's South Coast Air Basin 1981-2000," Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 53, pp. 864-875 (2003).

⁷ Yarwood, G. et al. "Modeling Weekday/Weekend Ozone Differences in the Los Angeles Region for 1997," Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 53, pp. 864-875 (2003).

⁸ Marr, L. C. & Harley, R. A. "Spectral Analysis of Weekday-Weekend Differences in Ambient Ozone, Nitrogen Oxide, and Non-Methane Hydrocarbon Time Series in California," Atmospheric Environment, 36, pp. 2327-2335 (2002).

⁹ Marr, L. C. & Harley, R. A. "Modeling the Effect of Weekday-Weekend Differences in Motor Vehicle Emissions on Photochemical Air Pollution in Central California," Environmental Science & Technology, 36, pp. 4099-4106 (2002).

¹⁰ Pun, B. K. & Seigneur, C. "Day-of-Week Behavior of Atmospheric Ozone in Three U.S. Cities," Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 53, pp. 789-801 (2003).

¹¹ Abt Associates, "Tier II Proposed Rule: Air Quality Estimation, Selected Health and Welfare Benefits Methods, and Benefit Analysis Results," EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1999.

¹² Photochemical Ozone Formation, Simplied, Donald Stedman PhD, 4-14-04

¹³ See Fiscal Year 2000 Appropriation Bill, Senate Rpt.106-161 - DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2000, "Tier II/Low Sulfur Rule,"

¹⁴ Southwest Research Institute located in San Antonio, Texas, is arguably the premier engine and emissions testing laboratory in the world, http://www.swri.org.

¹⁵ The regulation is already in effect (commencing 2004), but will not be fully adopted until 2007.

¹⁶ See "Remote Sensing - A New Tool for Automobile Inspection and Maintenance," Don Stedman, PhD [pdf]

¹⁷ EPA has also conveniently ignored the beneficial effects of atmospheric sulfur, when it mandated a unilateral reduction of fuel sulfur content. High concentrations of sulfur emitted from smoke stacks (coal fired utilities) is implicated in acid rain and haze, but this is not the case with diffuse concentrations of sulfur emitted from automobiles. It is well known that atmospheric sulfur is the seed of every cloud formed in the sky and that atmospheric sulfur is also a potent natural radiative coolant capable of substantially offsetting the warming effects of greenhouse gases. For example, "In addition to the warming effect of greenhouse-gas increases, however, changes in temperature over the past century are likely to have been significantly influenced by the cooling effect associated with changes in the sulfate aerosol loading of the atmosphere, arising from fossil-fuel-derived sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions," p 1, The Science of Climate Change, Pew Foundation July 29, 1999. EPA ignored this science as well.