Copyright 1999 Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.
Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony
May 18, 1999
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 1188 words
HEADLINE:
TESTIMONY May 18, 1999 DR. LOREN BEARD SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND
PUBLIC WORKS EPA'S PROPOSED SULPHUR STANDARD
BODY:
Testimony of Dr. Loren Beard Before the
Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Safety of the
Committee on Environment and Public Works May 18, 1999 My name is Dr. Loren
Beard and I am the Senior Manager of Materials and Fuels at Daimler Chrysler. I
am here representing the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and its member
companies regarding the nation's need for clean burning fuel. I want to thank
the Members of the Subcommittee for inviting me here today to give the Auto
Industry's perspective on the sulfur standard for
gasoline contained in the proposed Tier Two standard for
automobiles. The auto industry agrees in principle with the clean air goals of
the EPA's proposed rule governing the next round of new vehicle and fuel
standards (Tier 2). We agree that the American people, in all 50 states, want
and deserve clean air. However, we are certain that we cannot meet these goals
unless clean fuels are widely available to ensure the performance potential of
new vehicle hardware is realized. If the nation is to achieve its clean air
goals, it needs to apply all of the available tools, including some as yet
unproven vehicle technology. We are committed to providing the cleanest running
vehicles in the world. However, if exposed to the gasoline
sulfur levels found in the U.S. market today, or even to the 30 ppm
sulfur levels proposed by EPA, consumers will have wasted their
investment in new technology, which will be rapidly, and irreversibly rendered
ineffective. While we are committed to developing new, yet unproven vehicle
technologies for clean air, we need a partner in the oil industry to apply
proven, available, cost-effective technology to reduce sulfur
in gasoline to 5 ppm max. We have arrived at a stage of
automotive emissions control technology where every available resource must be
applied. EPA's proposed 30 ppm max. sulfur standard would
reduce ozone precursors by 160% more than API's proposal. Going to a 5 ppm cap
on sulfur would result in 250% more reductions than the API
proposal. (Slide 1) The rest of the world has recognized the serious problem of
exhaust catalyst poisoning by sulfur, and has taken steps to
reduce sulfur levels. The United States lags well behind the
rest of the developed world, and even some nations in the developing world in
controlling gasoline sulfur levels. (Slide 2) As this slide
shows (slide 3) the price of a gallon of gasoline is dominated
by the cost of crude oil and taxes. The cost to the consumer for the
sulfur reductions proposed by the auto industry will be small
compared to the normal variations in gasoline retail prices in
gasoline at the pump. In the United Kingdom, Sweden and
Finland, the governments offered small incentives to refiners for the early
introduction of ultra-low sulfur gasoline and diesel fuel.
Refiners rushed to take advantage of the incentives, and in the case of the
U.K., virtually all fuel in the country moved to low sulfur in
a period of about six months. Clearly, the cost of removing
sulfur cannot have been higher than the small incentives
offered, or refiners would not have moved so quickly, in fact, five years ahead
of regulation. The rest of Europe is rapidly using this approach. If we do not
move quickly to very low sulfur fuels, North America will
become the natural dumping ground for high sulfur fuels, which
will become economically non-viable in the rest of the developed world.
Sulfur is a known permanent poison to the platinum and
palladium- based exhaust catalysts used in automotive emissions systems. Simply
put, sulfur is the lead of the nineties. With very stringent
emissions standards, catalysts must operate at 98-99% efficiency for all driving
cycles. As this slide (slide 4) shows, even the reduction in catalyst efficiency
caused by an increase in gasoline sulfur from 5 ppm to 30 ppm
can lead to a doubling in exhaust emissions. EPA has set the course with very
low NOx standards in Tier 2, and NOx emissions are the most sensitive to fuel
sulfur. Some may argue that many U. S. states (mostly in the
west) already enjoy clean air, and don't need low sulfur
gasoline to protect their environment. The auto industry has noted that
the people in these states see clean air as a valuable asset. With its voluntary
National Low Emissions Vehicle (NLEV) program, the auto industry has voluntarily
agreed to provide the same clean-running vehicles to all fifty states that we
currently sell in California. Commitments to even tighter national standards
demand that sulfur- free gasoline be in place.
Under the new National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) standards for ozone
and particulate matter (PM), 43 U.S. states are projected to have areas which
are not in compliance with national clean air goals. (slide 5) These states will
be required under the Clean Air Act to take some action to reduce emissions. In
addition to the new clean-running vehicles provided by the auto industry, these
states will find that low sulfur gasoline is a cost-effective
means of achieving these goals. Aside from compliance with the ozone and PM
standards, several of the remaining 7 states will be called upon to reduce
regional haze under other Clean Air Act provisions. While power generation
stations and natural sources are the prime sources of emissions that eventually
result in haze. Taking the sulfur out of fuel will be a great
benefit to states that must institute programs to reduce haze. Through their
Partnership for the Next Generation of Vehicles (PNGV), the U.S. auto industry
is working together with the Federal Government to develop more fuel efficient
vehicle technologies in part to help reduce the nation's reliance on imported
oil and to address global climate issues. New fuel-efficient technologies
include direct-injection gasoline engines and
gasoline-fueled fuel cells. Advanced technology vehicles are
extremely sensitive to sulfur contamination. The failure to
control sulfur in gasoline will inhibit the
introduction of more fuel-efficient technologies, delaying the auto industry's
efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In essence, reducing the level of
sulfur in gasoline will not only benefit our
environment now, but it will facilitate a transition to cleaner future
technologies that will hero address Local climate issues In summary,
sulfur is a poison that eventually renders emissions control
equipment ineffective. The auto industry has committed through a proposal to EPA
to work to reach extremely low emissions levels. To get there, we need to use
all of the vehicle hardware tools available, some of which have not yet been
invented. This includes a commitment from the oil refiners to step up to the
challenge with very clean sulfur-free fuels, using available,
proven, cost-effective refining technologies. With all the right tools in place,
vehicle owners will use, and not waste, the investment they have made in
emissions control hardware and all citizens will benefit from cleaner air. This
concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to answer any questions that
you may have.
LOAD-DATE: May 19, 1999