Tobacco Documents Online

Tjington (Ttinee JUNATHAN ADLER DriVing costs of oxy-fuel fakery taca Nott 1. residents of the District of Columbia and many other major metropol- kan areas have been paying more for gasoline. In some areas, as • much as 10 cents more per gallon. In addition, many cars are begin- ning to expeticnce a 2 percent to 4 percent decline in the mileage trav clcd with each gallon of gas. This is a result of the Clean Air Act Amend- ments of 1990 that requircthe exctu- sivc sale or oxygenated fuels in the 39 citios with the worst carbon man- oxido (CO) pollution In the nation. The fourmontit oxygenatcd fuels prvgram Is designed to reduce CO pollution during the winter months, when CO levels are at their peak. The Idca Is that by increasing the oxygon level In gasoline - through the addition or either cthanel or MTBE (mcUtyl tcrtiary butyl ether) • - cngittes will burn "lancr." result• ing in more complete combustion and lower cmissions of CO. blowever, because the proeesa of producing and blending these additives in- crascs the costs of refining gas- oline. ilte costs to the consumer hava increased.Withreportsofapossibte shortage in supplies of MTISE, prices could climb still higher. While the Environmcntal Protac- tlon Agency Is very proud of its oxy- getuted fuet program and the reg- ulatory process that brought it about, fesidcnts of theaffected cities should not be so happS As with many . of EPAS programs, thc oxyfuels mandate is an overly expenaiva "drift uct" approach to a highly lo- alixad problem that can be ad• dressod in a more efficient, not to mention tquitable, manner. More- tnret; therc are serious doubts that the oxy-(ue/s program will bring any air quality benefit at all! DECEAlBER 16, 1992 Oxygennted Nds were first used to conibat high CO amissions in Den- vet; Cnln, Since their introduction, Colorado regulatory officials have trumpetad the program's success, claiming that ambient levels of CO are on the decline. Some critics, such as farry Anderson of the Uni- versity at' Colorado at Denver, charge that the "oxy-fuols program has had no statistiwlty sitptificant offecc on I CDj concentrations in the atmosphcro." What supportersof the program typically fail to mention Is that CU levels were declining woll before the program was In plact Aa newer, and cleancr, cars have re- placed thelr older, dirticr counter• parrs. CO emissions decreased and overail levcls or pollution declined. Moreover, due to the adaptive la'trn- ing technology in the engines of these new vehicles, the use of oxy fuels will have virtually no effect on the emissions of most late model se- hicles. What EPA would like to ignore is that only a smaii fraction of vehicles produce the vast majority of CO emissiona, Indeed, only 20 percent of the vehicles on the road are ra sponsible for 80 percent of the uc- hicular emissions of CO. Cleaning up or retiring only half of these ve- hicles would result in greater pollu• tion reduction than the use of oxy- gcnated fuels by the entire fleet. Moreover, where oxy-fuels only help reduceamissions of C0, retiring and repairlna dirty vehicles tends to re- dua emissions of other pollutants is well. . The vehicles Inspection and maintenance program was designed by EPA to identify these dirty vr hleles for repairs. Howevcr, because many of these vehicles are not reg- istered, temporarily malfuncdon- ing, or deliberately tampered with, a large proportion of the most pollut- Ing vehicles escape deteetion. With an annual or biennial testing pro- gram, It Is t:asy for automobile own- erstoprepareAorthetestandensure passage, and then readjust The vehi- elc engine to imprma vehicle per• formance and increase emissions. A method of addressing this problem was developed at the Uni• versity of Denver, and is now being marketed by a subsidiary of Ham-. Ilton Yl•st Systems. It is a remate sensing device that an detect the emissions of moving vehicles on the twd, record the license plate, and thus enable officials to require that the ofiending vehicle be repaired orr tuned up. lt is the vehicular emis• afons equivalent of using radar to atGhAAe4ders. .; Critics at EPA charge the test is noCperfect, citing that cars oca- sionally escape detection. But then nather is the EPA's program pcrfect. The' existing inspection system is easily avoided and a large number of offending vchic7es are ncvcr identl- fied. Moreover, oxygenated fucls, far (rom being "clcae;' merely sub- ititutc one form of pollution for an- othcn While reducing CO cmissions in some vehicles, oxygenated fuels increase emissions of nitrogon ox- ide, one or the components of urban smog, and aldehydes, classified by the EPA as a potential carcinogen. Indeed.aldchydc lcvals have risen In both Denver and Phoenix sincc-the beginning of their oxygenated fuels programs several years ago. This from a program that Is 5 to 10 times as expensive in terms or CO onus• slons reduced. Far from a rational approach to concerns about air quality the oxy- fucls program represents much that Is wrong with environmental policy today Rather than identifying the polluters and forcing them to clean up, bureaucrats instead prefcr to im- pose costs on all drivers, irrespec- tive of their contribution to the cur- rent problem. This type of "drift-net" strategy is preferred by regulatory agenc!es bccause it maximizes the «ope of regulatory authority and is less complicated to implement than a more targetcd (and equitable) program. • Moreover, there are powerful eco- nomic interests that stand to gain from the mandated use of oxygen- Ared fuels. Archer Daniels Midland- -for one, is the largest producer of ,ethanol and the single largest con- •tributor of "soft money" for the first three quarters of 1992. Because eth- anol Is significantly more expensive than gasolinc, it would never have a shot in the marketplace for fuel ad- ditives absent a government man- date. It Is no wonder that, when the oxydUels program was threatened during the debate on the 1990 law, !nfluentialsenatorsleapttotheaddi- tiv.'s defense. Unfortunatelx thore was no one around to protect the average American eonsumer. ~ O A ~ Jonathan H. Adler Is an environ- ~ menral policy analyst at The Com• -L pethiveEnterpriscdnstitute.Hecon- ,p tribtaed the chapter "Clean Fuels, t,l Dirry Air" to "Environmental Poli- ties: Public Costs, PJivate Rewards" (Proeter).