“Clean Cars” Not Cut and Dried
by State Representatives Selim Noujaim & Sean Williams

Last week, the House of Representatives took up a bill that purported to be a measure that would reduce auto emissions and give us cleaner air in Connecticut. To listen to its advocates, Senate Bill 119, An Act Concerning Clean Cars, would have reduced toxic emissions from motor vehicles, relieved severe asthma symptoms for nearly half a million Connecticut residents, and greatly improved public health. It would accomplish this amazing task by adopting California’s emissions standards for light duty motor vehicles, those that seat 12 or fewer passengers.

Federal law requires our state to do one of two things; adopt the emissions standards set by either the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or California (42 USC Sec. 7507) for all new vehicles sold in the state. We could either adopt the second phase of California’s program, known as Level II for all models starting with 2007, or the second phase of the federal EPA program, known as Tier 2. Both of these boast more stringent requirements and emissions standards for gasoline and diesel motor vehicles. Exhaust and evaporative emissions are placed in tighter control. There are subtle differences between the two as to pollutants that are focused on and the standards imposed.

The bill as it was drafted and introduced was poor in preparation and explanation. It did not ban California type gasoline, and would have forced Connecticut to use that type of blend of gasoline that is not sold anywhere else in the country and thus would add 10-20 cents per gallon to the price. . Other states that have adopted the California standard have banned this type of gas, specifically, Massachusetts, Maryland, and New Jersey.

The bill also required a Zero-Emissions Vehicle Mandate, which California has implemented with dismal results. California first adopted this in 1990, requiring the development of cars that do not operate on fossil fuels. This is anti-free market, in that it would deny consumers the ability to purchase lower-cost cars powered by fossil fuels if they so choose.

These kinds of mandates, which were incorporated in the original legislation, could have added a whopping $4,000 to the price of new vehicles in the state of Connecticut, and would raise fuel costs at a time when gasoline is already at astounding prices. This type of policy hits businesses the hardest, which will in turn pass the cost along to consumers.

The writers opposed the bill as introduced and argued that the benefits it provides in so-called clean air do not justify the added costs and inconveniences it imposes on consumers. Numerous legislators joined the argument; therefore, the bill was modified dramatically, and was proposed in a much more compromise.

However, a measure simply had to be passed, or our state would be in non-compliance with federal law. An amendment was attached in the Senate that greatly diminished

many of these problems, which is the version we voted for. However many of the concerns remain. Unfortunately, the risks of being in non-compliance with federal law could open Connecticut up to a number of possible sanctions from the EPA, which would impact federal funding levels.

This measure, which is really a whopping mandate from the federal government, will do much to allow posturing in an election year. However, it is unlikely to do anything in the way of making residents of Connecticut breathe easier.