The House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee, chaired by Rep. Bill Adolph (R-Delaware), held a public hearing this week to gather information on the best set of vehicle emissions regulations Pennsylvania should adopt in order to meet federal air quality standards.

“As chairman of the committee, I have heard arguments both for and against the California Low Emissions Vehicle standards and the federal vehicle emissions standards,” said Adolph. “This hearing was aimed at gathering reliable information that will help the state legislature determine which set of standards will benefit Pennsylvania’s air quality the most and help us meet federal air quality standards.”

The hearing was specifically held to address the impact House Bill 2141 (Geist-R-Blair), known as the Fuel Additive Regulatory Control Act, would have on Pennsylvania’s ability to meet the requirements of the federal Clean Air Act of 1990. This legislation would require Pennsylvania adopt the federal vehicle emissions standards for new vehicles, rather than the California Low Emissions Vehicle standards.

Testifiers at the hearing included Kathleen McGinty, secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection; Allen Biehler, secretary of the Department of Transportation; Judy Katz, air protection division director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Joel Schwartz, visiting fellow with the American Enterprise Institute; Greg Dana, vice president for environmental affairs of the Alliance of Automobile Makers; and Kevin Stewart, director of environmental health for the American Lung Association of the Mid-Atlantic.

Secretary McGinty said regulations proposing that Pennsylvania adopt the California standards will be published in the February 11 PA Bulletin for public review. That review will include three public hearings in Pittsburgh, Harrisburg and Philadelphia.

Secretary McGinty said the California standards would allow Pennsylvania to take credit for more emission reductions from vehicles than the federal vehicle standards. Those reductions are necessary to attaining and maintaining the federal 8-hour ozone standard, she said.

She noted if emission reductions could not be achieve from this source, they would have to come from other sources to meet the ozone standard compliance deadline of 2010 in several areas of the state and then maintain the standard for ten years thereafter.

Other witnesses said the California standards would only result in a one percent difference in emissions by 2025, especially given the length of time it takes for the number of new vehicles to show up in the vehicle fleet in sufficient numbers.

One of the main issues brought up during the hearing was whether automobile manufacturers would raise the price of vehicles when forced to manufacture cars to meet new air quality guidelines. Possible increased cost to consumers is something the committee will take under consideration.

Estimates presented to the Committee ranged from zero additional cost to over $3,000 per car if Pennsylvania adopts the full California standard.

Another concern of committee members was the control Pennsylvania would be giving up to another state if California’s standards, and therefore all future changes to the standards, were adopted.

“Many people seemed to think that what we are dealing with here is a no-brainer and that we should simply adopt one or the other and be done with it,” said Adolph. “What they have to realize is that the committee is working to find the best possible set of regulations for Pennsylvania as a whole. We need to consider the long-term ramifications if we are to adopt one set of regulations over the other. Our environmental health as a state is a serious issue and we need to make sure we have all the facts before making a decision that will have a long term impact of the citizens of Pennsylvania.”

This hearing follows hearings on this topic by the House Democratic Policy and Senate Environmental Resources and Energy and Transportation committees.

2/10/2006