1998 to 2001 — Entrenchment of Status Quo: Although the Regulation does not require auto manufacturers
to sell cleaner vehicles earlier than 2001, they are encouraged
to do so by “banking” provisions in the Regulation. Auto
manufacturers can "bank" credits for the sale of low emission
vehicles prior to 2001 and use these credits to meet requirements
that apply in 2001 and after.
2001 and after — Comparison with California Standards: This “fleet average” requirement is a significant improvement over current
standards, but it is not as stringent as fleet average requirements in
California and a number of other US states. In California in 2001,
manufacturers need to sell a mix of vehicles equivalent to 90% LEVs, 5%
ultra low emission vehicles ("ULEVs") and 5% zero emission vehicles ("ZEVs")
starting in 2001. The BC Regulation does not require manufacturers to sell
this clean a mix until 2005. Even in 2005 the BC Regulation will not be as
stringent as California regulations. After 2002 manufacturers selling
in California are required to sell a mix equivalent to 75% LEVs, 15% ULEVs
and 10% ZEVs.
No Zero Emission Vehicle Sales Mandate: Increased Pressure for North American Low Emission Vehicle: Heavy Duty Trucks Remain Unregulated:
It is the world's first motor vehicle
regulation to explicitly target greenhouse gas emissions,
but in fact it does less than what other jurisdictions such
as California and some northeastern US states have
done to actually reduce these emissions. The Regulation will
reduce local pollutants such as nitrous oxides and volatile
organics by codifying the existing standard to which auto
manufacturers build vehicles and requiring sales of lower
emission vehicles beginning in 2001.
Starting in the 1998 model year, the Regulation
requires that all vehicles be certified as “Tier 1 vehicles.”
This standard is more stringent than Transport Canada's
current legal standard, but it will not significantly
change the vehicles supplied to BC. Since 1994, manufacturers
have been supplying Tier 1 vehicles to Canada under a voluntary
agreement with Transport Canada. The BC Regulation will ensure
that no manufacturers renege on this commitment.
Beginning in 2001 manufacturers will be required to sell
a mix of Tier 1 vehicles and lower emissions vehicles. The average
emissions level for all the cars a manufacturer sells in a year must
be equivalent to California's low emission vehicle standard. This
standard could be met by manufacturers selling 100% low emission vehicles, or “LEVs”.
Unlike California, New York and Massachusetts, the British Columbia
Regulation does not include a requirement that manufacturers sell a
minimum percentage of zero emission vehicles. ZEVs are particularly
important for reducing smog, because, unlike low and ultra low
emission vehicles, their emission performance does not deteriorate
over time. (See accompanying article on AirCare). ZEVs and hybrid
electric vehicles are also the only vehicle technologies that
significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. (See the accompanying
Greenhouse Gas article).
The British Columbia Regulation may have some relevance outside of BC, helping lead
to a cleaner car standard for all of North America. The BC requirements for 2001 to 2004
can be met by manufacturers selling the equivalent of 100% LEVs. Manufacturers have
promised to provide the equivalent of 100% LEVs starting in 2001, but only if the US
EPA does not require California standards in the northeastern states (which the EPA
will require unless manufacturers provide 100% LEVs to the entire US) and provided
New York and Massachusetts drop requirements for ZEVs (which these states are loath
to do). By requiring the equivalent of 100% low emission vehicles starting in
2001, BC increases the pressure on manufacturers to drop their intransigent stand
against the New York and Massachusetts zero emission vehicle requirements.
The BC Regulation only applies to light duty vehicles — those under 2,700 kilograms
gross vehicle weight. Large pickups, delivery trucks and tractor trailers over the
2,700 kg threshold account for a large portion of vehicles sold in BC and an even
larger portion of emissions. These vehicles will be subject to less stringent federal
regulations.
Current trends in increased vehicle use, combined with meager anticipated improvements in fuel economy - the National Energy Board forecasts improvements of 0.3% per year - could lead to a 65% rise in greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles from 1990 to 2020.
The British Columbia Motor Vehicle Emission Reduction Regulation does not do enough to reduce these emissions. The low emission vehicles required by the Regulation are intended to reduce local pollutants such as nitrous oxide and volatile organic compounds, but so long as they use gasoline, they are no different from current vehicles in their emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
The BC Regulation addresses greenhouse gas emissions by establishing
a Cleaner Technology Vehicle Committee charged with promoting
sales of ultra low emission vehicles, hybrid electric vehicles
and zero-emission vehicles. Non-mandatory sales targets are set
for these classes of vehicles. These are set at 2% of BC sales
in 1998, rising to 10% in 2003. The Committee will also help
identify constraints to the use of vehicles with lower greenhouse
gas emissions.
Although the establishment of voluntary sales targets in the Regulation provides a useful measure of the Committee's success, the impact of the Committee may be limited. First, the Regulation does not require the government to procure vehicles with lower emissions of greenhouse gases, nor does it allocate any fund for the procurement of alternate fueled vehicles, hybrids or zero-emission vehicles.
The government has promised an explicit new procurement policy to address this defect, but the policy has not yet been introduced. In comparison, a number of US jurisdictions not only require purchases of alternative fueled vehicles for their own fleets, but also require local and corporate fleets to purchase alternative fueled vehicles and offer incentives to encourage retail purchases of ZEVs and alternative fueled vehicles.
Second, even though the purpose of the Committee is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles, the Committee's mandate doesn't focus on technologies that have significant impacts. Only hybrid vehicles and ZEVs have any large impacts on greenhouse gas emissions. The Committee should have been directed to consider only these types of vehicles, and possibly alternative fueled ULEVs which have marginal impacts of greenhouse gas emissions. Gasoline ULEVs will have the same emissions of carbon dioxide as their high emission counterparts.
Another way that the Regulation proposes to deal with greenhouse gas emissions is by requiring manufacturers to submit emission reduction proposals, stating what actions they will take from 1997 to 2000 to voluntarily reduce all forms of vehicle emissions. Since there are no specific requirements for these proposals, and since manufacturers to date have shown absolutely no interest in limiting greenhouse gas emissions, it is unlikely that this part of the Regulation will do much to curb the alarming increase in greenhouse gas emissions.
Two essential requirements for reducing greenhouse gas emissions were not included in the Regulation. First, there are no efficiency requirements in the Regulation. Fuel efficiency directly relates to greenhouse gas releases. Second, there is no sales mandate for zero emission vehicles (e.g. electric vehicles or super-efficient hybrid electric vehicles which use an on-board generator to supply electricity). Because of BC's clean electricity mix and the efficiency of electric vehicles, ZEVs' life cycle greenhouse gases are about one eighth those of conventional gasoline vehicles.
The failure to include a ZEV sales mandate or fuel efficiency requirements follows the failure of the Cleaner Gasoline Regulation (see last WCEL newsletter) to specify a requirement for fuel from renewable, biomass (low carbon intensive) sources. Without a sales mandate for zero emission vehicles or super efficient hybrid electric vehicles, without fuel efficiency requirements and without requirements for renewable content in fuel, it is unlikely that the BC Regulation will lead to significant sales of ZEVs in BC, and it is doubtful that growth in greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles will be substantially curbed.
The Motor Vehicle Emission Reduction Regulation has been hailed as the magic bullet that will solve the Lower Mainland's air quality problems. The impact of the Regulation may, in fact, be somewhat more modest. First, the Regulation requires significant improvements to AirCare in order to reap the full benefit of California emission standards. Second, light duty vehicles only account for about one third of the two most significant anthropogenic sources of smog in the Lower Fraser Valley.
A new car driven off the dealer's lot in BC in 2001 will have
roughly half the emissions of nitrous oxides and about one third
the emissions of volatile organics as a new car driven off the
lot in 1996. Carbon monoxide emissions are unchanged.
These are significant improvements, but if the new lower emission car is not stringently maintained its emissions performance will deteriorate. Although AirCare is an excellent inspection and maintenance program which has significantly reduced emissions in the Lower Mainland, it is not currently equipped to ensure that a low emission vehicle or ultra low emission vehicle is maintained at the standard to which it is built. If Greater Vancouverites want to see greatly reduced vehicle emissions, AirCare will need to be significantly upgraded.
The government will also need to act on its commitment to adopt regulations requiring manufacturers to warrant that vehicles will meet low emission vehicle standards for the first few years of their life. These warranties are essential to making improved AirCare standards affordable for motorists.
As noted, a new car in 2001 will have around half the emissions
of nitrous oxides as a new car sold in 1996. Nitrous oxides together
with sunlight and volatile organics react to form ground level
ozone. Since there are many natural sources of volatile organics
in Greater Vancouver, reducing nitrous oxides are the key to reducing
ground level ozone. Cars and light trucks account for only one
third of the Greater Vancouver Regional District's nitrous oxide
emissions. Also, light duty vehicles, although major contributors
to fine particulate pollution, likely only account for about one
third of ambient fine particulate. The extent to which reduction
in vehicle emissions will reduce ambient fine particulate formation
is uncertain.
The idea that BC vehicle emission standards will end smog, by halving NOx emissions from cars, is misguided. The standards are an important part of a larger solution, nothing more, nothing less.
|
9:00 AM - 4:30 PM, SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1996 In 1992, Canada was the first industrialized nation to sign the International Convention on Biological Diversity at the United Nations Earth Summit in Rio. That Convention obliges all signatories to take steps towards protecting endangered species and maintaining biodiversity. Canada has no federal endangered species law yet, but the government is proposing new legislation. The goal of this conference is to promote public awareness of the proposed legislation and to facilitate discussion on this developing area of law. WCEL's Linda Nowlan will be speaking. 1822 East Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z1. Fax (604) 822-8108, tel (604) 228-2195. |
On the weekend of December 1 - 3, 1995, I had the real pleasure of attending the annual meeting of the Canadian Environmental Network Environmental Assessment Caucus ("the Caucus") in Ottawa in my capacity as a Director of WCELA. Filling in for Executive Director Bill Andrews, I attempted to represent the WCELA perspective amongst Caucus representatives from the grassroots environmental groups and environmental law centres from across the country, while at the same time avoiding frostbite and hypothermia.
As this was my first exposure to the Caucus, I had a lot of learning to do. For those of you who are unaware, the Caucus is one of several "issue oriented" caucuses that operate under the auspices of the Canadian Environmental Network. To date, the primary function of the Caucus has been to participate, through a variety of means, in the development of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) and its regulatory schedules.
As CEAA has developed from a gleam in a bureaucrat's eye to a flesh and blood piece of legislation, representatives of the Caucus have played a key role in ensuring that the interests of the environment and public participation in environmental decision-making were represented throughout the process (through participation in, among other things, the aptly named RAC, or Regulatory Advisory Committee).
With the recent enactment of CEAA and most of its attached
schedules and regulations, however, the Caucus felt that the time
had come for a reassessment of its purpose and focus, and this
subject formed the heart of much of the discussion over the weekend.
Some of the key issues discussed were the dissolution (or as
one delegate put it, the devolution, destruction, discarding and
downright dismantling) of federal powers over the management of
the environment through the "Harmonization Process."
The Caucus also discussed the monitoring and critique of the
actual implementation of CEAA, and the development and
enactment of regulations governing procedures during an environmental
assessment hearing under the Act.
While none of these issues can be resolved over the course of a weekend meeting in a cheap motel, their profile during the meeting signaled (to this participant) a shift in direction for the Caucus. As one participant pointed out, there is very little political will among the federal bureaucracies to take an aggressive approach to environmental assessment, so the need for a forceful Caucus presence is stronger than ever. As representatives of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency briefly attended the meeting to invite the Caucus to attend a meeting with them in March to discuss Caucus priorities and goals, the time seems right for the Caucus to move forward from is past achievements.
- Tim Howard, Board Member, WCEL
WCELRF, 1001 207 West Hastings, Vancouver, BC, V6B 1H7, Canada.
Phone (604) 684-7378; fax (604) 684-1312; email: admin@wcel.org
home page: http://freenet.vancouver.bc.ca/local/wcel/
Printed on 100% recycled paper (not secondarily bleached or de-inked).
NEWS from West Coast Environmental Law (ISSN 1204-4326), copyright 1996, is
published by the West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation
and represents the work of the West Coast Environmental Law Groups.
West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation (WCELRF) does
research and education and maintains an environmental law library.
West Coast Environmental Law Association (WCELA) provides legal
representation and promotes law reform. The West Coast Environmental
Dispute Resolution Fund Society (WCEDRFS) provides assistance
and funding to citizens to help solve environmental problems in
their communities. The mission of the West Coast Environmental
Law groups is to provide legal services to protect the environment
and to foster public participation in environmental decision-making.
We are grateful to the Law Foundation of British Columbia for
core funding of the West Coast Environmental Law groups. Donations
to West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation and West Coast
Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund Society are tax creditable.
This issue was produced by Bill Andrews, Morgan Ashbridge, Chris Heald, Ann Hillyer, Patricia Houlihan, Catherine Ludgate, Alexandra Melnyk, Linda Nowlan, and Chris Rolfe.