http://www.pbs.org/now/science/smog.html

Los Angeles, with its little red corvettes running up Sunset Boulevard, has taken over from London as the cultural icon of air pollution. Of course, LA's notorious smog is not the result of burning coal, but car exhaust trapped in the basin of the San Fernando Valley. As California paved the way for America's highway culture, California also has led the way in air quality reforms — a few of which are noted below. However, in 2002 the Los Angeles area also led the nation in hazardous air quality days.

1943 - First recognized episodes of smog occur in Los Angeles in the summer of 1943. Visibility is only three blocks and people suffer from smarting eyes, respiratory discomfort, nausea, and vomiting.

1945 - The City of Los Angeles begins its air pollution control program, establishing the Bureau of Smoke Control in its health department.

1947 - California Governor Earl Warren signs into law the Air Pollution Control Act, authorizing the creation of an Air Pollution Control District in every county of the state.

1959 - California enacts legislation requiring the state Department of Public Health to establish air quality standards and necessary controls for motor vehicle emissions.

1966 - Auto tailpipe emission standards for hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide are adopted by the California Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Board. They are the first of their kind in the nation. California Highway Patrol begins random roadside inspections of vehicle smog control devices.

1969 - First state Ambient Air Quality Standards are promulgated by California for total suspended particulates, photochemical oxidants, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and carbon monoxide

1976 - California limits lead in gasoline.

1988 - California Clean Air Act is signed by Governor Deukmejian. Sets forth the framework for how air quality will be managed in California for the next 20 years

1990 - California approves standards for Cleaner Burning Fuels and Low and Zero Emission Vehicles.

1999 - In California consumer products rules were adopted to cut smog-forming emissions and volatile organic compounds (VOC) from an estimated 2,500 common household products ranging from nail polish remover to glass cleaners.

2001 - LA regains the title of having the most number of high ozone days. LA fails the national standards for 3 criterion pollutants: CO, particulates and ozone.
Pop-Up sidebar at pbs

1930: CA pop. = below 6 million; cars = 2 million

1960: CA pop. = 16 million; cars = 8 million and annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is 71 billion.

1970: CA pop. = 20 million; cars = 12 million; VMT is 110 billion.

1980: CA pop = 24 million; cars = 17 million; VMT is 155 billion.

1990: CA pop. = 30 million; cars = 23 million; VMT is 242 billion.

2000: CA pop. = 34 million; cars = 23.4 million. VMT reaches 280 billion miles.

MORE at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/brochure/history.htm

http://www.jdpa.com/presspass/pressrelease.asp?ID=2003007

J.D. Power and Associates Reports:

More Consumers are Interested in Clean Diesel-Powered Vehicles

Than in Hybrid-Electric Vehicles

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 28, 2003

WESTLAKE VILLAGE, Calif.—Given a choice, more consumers indicate they would select a clean diesel engine over a hybrid electric engine to power their next vehicle, according to the J.D. Power and Associates Clean Diesel Market Assessment StudySM released today.

The first clean diesel-powered vehicles are not expected to hit the market for at least three more years. However, if given a choice between a traditional gasoline, clean diesel or hybrid electric engine in their next vehicle, 27 percent of consumers said they would select a clean diesel, compared with 22 percent who would choose a hybrid electric engine and 51 percent who would select a gasoline-powered engine.

“This indicates that clean diesel technology has great potential,” said Walter McManus, executive director of global forecasting for J.D. Power and Associates. “The two major challenges automakers face with clean diesel technology is creating awareness and overcoming the negative perceptions many consumers have of diesel. They need to educate consumers on clean diesel technology and show them that it provides cleaner emissions, better fuel economy, and more power, durability and dependability than many of the diesels on the road today.”

Clean diesel technology was defined for survey respondents as “comparable performance of that of a gasoline engine, but the typical diesel noise, vibration and pollution have been reduced to that of a gasoline engine.” Based on that description, 22 percent of consumers say they “definitely will” consider a clean diesel engine in their next vehicle purchase and an additional 44 percent indicate they “probably will” consider a clean diesel engine.

Consumers also express some concerns about clean diesel, including limited availability of fuel and service and repair locations, along with maintenance costs and whether clean diesel engines will be available in the vehicles they desire.

Vehicle manufacturers expect the first clean diesel-powered vehicles to be introduced in 2006, the same year the Environmental Protection Agency has mandated low-sulfur diesel fuel to be available nationally.

“Widespread consumer acceptance of clean diesel-powered vehicles will depend primarily on the fuel’s availability in the marketplace,” McManus said. “If low-sulfur diesel is available at only the stations that offer standard diesel today, then widespread consumer acceptance is unlikely. Before consumers spend their money for a clean diesel-powered vehicle, they want to know more about the technology and have some reassurance that there will be convenient refueling locations.”

Dealers, suppliers and engine manufacturers expect the price premium for a clean diesel engine to be between $1,000 and $4,000 above a standard gasoline engine. American vehicle manufacturers expect the price premium to be between $2,000 and $4,000, Japanese vehicle manufacturers expect it to be between $1,000 and $2,000 and European vehicle manufacturers expect it to be $600 or less. However, U.S. consumers expect to pay between $400 and $1,000.

The study finds that consumers want the government to offer some type of tax credit to offset the price premium for these vehicles, with an average tax credit of $1,677 needed as an incentive to purchase a clean diesel vehicle.

Consumers expect to recover some of the price premium in fuel savings. Even if the fuel cost savings from clean diesel doesn’t cover all of the incremental investment in buying the vehicle, 40 percent of consumers indicate that they still will consider a clean diesel vehicle for the lower fuel costs, tax credits or to reduce dependence on foreign oil.

Based on 4,473 survey respondents, as well as interviews with Japanese, European and American vehicle manufacturers, automotive suppliers, engine manufacturers, dealer principals, and business managers, the Clean Diesel Market Assessment Study is designed to measure consumer awareness and interest in clean diesel engine technology.

In the coming months, J.D. Power-LMC Automotive Forecasting Services will be offering a global forecast for 2003 to 2015 and an in-depth analysis of the economic, technological and regulatory forces affecting the demand and supply of diesel-powered vehicles.

Headquartered in Westlake Village, Calif., J.D. Power and Associates is an ISO 9001-registered global marketing information services firm operating in key business sectors including market research, forecasting, consulting, training and customer satisfaction. The firm’s quality and satisfaction measurements are based on responses from millions of consumers annually. Media e-mail contact: john.tews@jdpa.com or michael.greywitt@jdpa.com

No advertising or other promotional use can be made of the information in this release without the express prior written consent of J.D. Power and Associates. www.jdpa.com

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/business/industries/automotive/5073328.htm

Posted on Fri, Jan. 31, 2003

New-Age Diesels

HIGH-MILEAGE VEHICLES GET ANOTHER LOOK THANKS TO IMPROVED ENGINE TECHNOLOGY

By Matt Nauman

Mercury News

Automakers think U.S. car buyers are ready to give diesel engines another try.

Gone are the days of the loud, smoky, smelly diesel vehicles that some might remember from the '70s, they say.

Instead, there's talk of new engine technology and clean diesel fuel that's coming in 2006. Pro-diesel car makers emphasize that diesel cars get 20 percent to 40 percent better gas mileage than gasoline equivalents, have better low-end torque and aren't a pain to sit in traffic behind anymore.

Right now, Volkswagen is the only automaker selling diesel cars in the United States. But VW's competitors have noticed the sales growth of VW's diesels. Sales were up 24 percent last year -- VW dealers sold 31,220 Golfs, Jettas and New Beetles in 2002 compared with 23,646 in 2001 -- while the company's overall sales fell 5 percent.

Later this year, VW will begin selling diesel-burning sedan and wagon versions of its mid-size Passat. Next, probably in 2004, VW will introduce a diesel version of its new Touareg sport-utility to U.S. buyers. Also in 2004, DaimlerChrysler will offer two diesels, an E320 sedan with a turbo-charged six-cylinder engine through its Mercedes-Benz dealerships and a Liberty sport-utility with a 2.8-liter turbo-diesel through its Jeep dealerships.

And other automakers, including Ford, are considering bringing diesels to America.

Potential for growth

Right now, Ford, General Motors and DaimlerChrysler offer diesel engines in their full-size pickups. The Diesel Technology Forum reports that less than 2 percent of the vehicles on U.S. roads use diesel, but that about 10 percent of full-size pickups do.

In November, the British research firm Automotive Industry Data reported that it expects U.S. diesel sales to grow to 16 percent of the car-truck market by 2010.

That would mean American buyers in 2010 would purchase about 2 million diesel-powered trucks and SUVs and 400,000 diesel passenger cars.

While some characterize those projections as overly optimistic, they do note that diesel cars account for about 40 percent of sales in Europe where fuel prices are much higher than in the United States. Ford, for instance, reports that 13.7 percent of the cars it sold in Europe in 1992 were diesels. In 2002, the number had grown to more than 35 percent, and the company projects half its European sales will be diesels by 2006.

DaimlerChrysler is emerging as one of the leading proponents of diesel technology. In Detroit earlier this month, Dieter Zetsche, president and CEO of the Chrysler Group, touted the potential of diesels.

The diesel engine in Europe is a very valid choice. It ought to be in the U.S. even more so,'' he said.

American drivers, he said, want more torque, more low-end power, and that's what diesel provides.

It's about starting strong from the red light. It's about towing big boats. It's about really going off-road, and it's not about autobahn top speed,'' Zetsche said.

Bernard Robertson, a DaimlerChrysler senior vice president for engineering technologies and regulatory affairs, sees another benefit.

Diesels primarily are all about fuel economy,'' he said.

The VW New Beetle, for instance, gets 24 mpg and 31 mpg in city and highway driving from its 1.8-liter four-cylinder gasoline engine, but 42 and 49 mpg from its 1.9-liter four-cylinder diesel motor. According to the EPA, the difference in what a consumer would spend on fueling the two Beetles in a year is nearly $400.

From an automaker's perspective, several challenges remain before diesel gets full mainstream acceptance.

One is perception.

Even 10 years ago, diesels, while they were fuel efficient, were noisy, smoky and they had poor performance,'' said Jim Weidenbach, DaimlerChrysler's manager for small diesel powertrain programs.

And while technology has led to improvements, the old notions remain for some drivers.

These standards, labeled Tier 2 rules, plus the arrival of low-sulfur diesel fuel in 2006, make the next three years significant for the future of diesel in America.

Rather than commit to trying diesel in any significant way, other automakers, most notably GM, Toyota and Honda, have put their research and marketing dollars behind hybrids, cars that use both small gasoline engines and electric motors to boost their fuel efficiency.

Clean diesel or hybrid?

Clean-diesel technology has great potential,'' said Walter McManus, Power's executive director of global forecasting. However, automakers must increase awareness of the benefits of diesel and contradict negative perceptions for the fuel to become embraced by U.S. buyers, he said.

Cost might be another issue, according to the Power report. Consumers expect that they'll pay $400 to $1,000 more for a diesel vehicle, but domestic automakers predict the price premium could be as high $2,000 to $4,000.

Concerns about the environmental impact of the increased use of diesel fuel exist, too.

Diesel fuel sold in California is actually much better than what's sold in the other 49 states, said Loren Beard, DaimlerChrysler's senior manager for environmental and energy planning. Some stations, including BPs, are now selling ultra-low-sulfur diesel in California.

But the quality of the diesel fuel in the other 49 states is worse than what's available in India or Africa.

They are the worst in the world,'' Beard said.

And fuel quality is vitally important since engines are calibrated to run most efficiently with a consistent formula of fuel.

Robertson, the DaimlerChrysler vice president, said he's

fairly optimistic'' that diesel can win acceptance, even in environmentally conscious California.

We are hopeful that's there's a sufficiently open mind statewide to give diesel a shot,'' he said.

Contact Matt Nauman at mnauman@sjmercury.com or (408) 920-5701.

Date: 1/30/03 | Source: AlterNet

In Tuesday's State of the Union Address, President Bush proposed a $1.2 billion plan for research and development (R&D) investment in fuel cell cars, joining the growing bipartisan consensus on the need for energy innovation. America needs an ambitious plan to create real energy independence, equal to our commitment to the Apollo space program. But the president's initiative is a faint start toward addressing this major national challenge: too small, too narrow, and too slow to get us where we need to go.

The Bush proposal for a "Freedom Fuel" initiative actually represents $720 million in new money over five years ($273 million has been proposed for 2004). This is a drop in the bucket in a $2 trillion budget, and pales when compared to the $364 billion package of tax breaks and credits that were proposed in the Presidents energy policy, over 75 percent of which were directed toward traditional energy sources and mature technology.

Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota has proposed spending $6.5 billion for fuel cells over the next 10 years, not only on R&D, but to accelerate deployment, to expand government purchasing, and to offer tax incentives for their use by consumers, pushing the technology forward while improving energy security now. Senator Dorgan's plan makes sense.

But, while fuel cells offer tremendous promise for long-term supplies of clean energy, putting fuel cell cars on the road in 25 to 50 years is not enough. We need a broad plan for reinvestment that strengthens all sectors of the economy and starts right away.

Americans use 25 percent of the worlds energy, almost three times as much as the second-highest consumer, China. We use more energy to create each dollar of GDP, and more energy per capita, than every other industrialized nation, twice the rate of Europe or Japan. Much of this energy is wasted, a problem extending far beyond transportation. A broad-based plan for energy independence would invest in new capital stock, retrofit our buildings, and capture new manufacturing markets. Fuel cell cars in the future are but a small piece of the puzzle.

The U.S. now imports over half of our petroleum, leaving us vulnerable to price shocks that slow the economy and threaten national security. In the face of these mounting energy challenges, R&D is necessary but not sufficient. We need immediate action to deploy existing proven technology. A proactive strategy will also stimulate the economy now and create near term jobs when they are most needed. The Bush proposal underscores the fundamental credibility gap this administration has on energy policy.

Our nation faces a substantial threat from our dependence on foreign oil and from our reliance on an energy infrastructure that is aging, insecure, and inefficient. The President's limited proposal squanders an historic opportunity to broadly adopt non-polluting renewable energy, increase energy efficiency, and to use new investment in public infrastructure to increase regional economic development.

The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy estimates that a comprehensive set of efficiency policies alone could save 33 percent of our projected energy budget by 2020, at a savings to businesses and consumers of $500 billion annually, putting real money in the pockets of working families while creating over a million new jobs.

It is time for a national Apollo project for energy independence that invests in our communities, improves our national productivity, and creates good jobs for American workers. This national commitment will meet energy challenges and serve as an engine for the economy, driving a broad range of exciting new technologies into the market, rebuilding our cities, and investing in our nations public infrastructure.

An Apollo project will accelerate a hydrogen infrastructure, to be sure, but it will do much more. To truly solve our energy problems we must increase construction of high performance buildings that not only use less energy, but improve our quality of life. We must expand transit options, promoting "smart growth" and increasing equity and mobility. We must rebuild the electrical grid to support distributed generation from renewable energy, and build demand for a wide range of energy efficient products, from hybrid cars to new appliances. And we must support these new markets with advanced manufacturing and clean production, revitalizing domestic industry, and restoring our jobs base.

An Apollo project will invest now in a flagging economy, and offer long-term savings to fuel continued growth. A real program for energy independence will start today, to move the economy onto a new energy path.

The President has consistently supported an energy policy that wastes resources and hurts workers, communities, and the environment. He has prolonged our dependence on foreign oil and our vulnerability to volatile energy prices. The nation needs to move beyond this risky strategy.

The "Freedom Fuel" initiative will increase investment in an important energy source. This is a good start, but we must do much, much more. Immediate deployment of proven technology throughout our economy will improve the productivity of our work force, stimulate growth, and build a lasting prosperity. The nation is calling for real leadership and decisive action, the president has proposed more research. It is time for an American Apollo project that is bold, far reaching, and starts today.

Bracken Hendricks is the Director of the New Growth Initiative, a joint project of the Institute for Americas Future and the Center on Wisconsin Strategy, dedicated to promoting good jobs and energy independence. Hendricks served as a Special Assistant in the Clinton Administration.
http://www.evworld.com/databases/shownews.cfm?pageid=news020203-02

On the Road to Smaller, Fuel-Efficient SUVs

Consumers, while still in love with the goliaths, are steering the marketplace to roll out safer, less-wasteful models, experts say.

Source: LA Times [Feb 02, 2003]

WASHINGTON -- The bad habits of gas-guzzling, road-hogging sport utility vehicles are a red-hot topic, but consumers bought 4 million of them last year, and the Bush administration is unlikely to impose safety and environmental changes that could kill the market.

America's infatuation with the off-road behemoths that became a suburban creature comfort doesn't seem headed toward a rejection of SUVs -- only a desire to tame them by making them less prone to flip over or crush cars in collisions and somewhat less wasteful of fuel.

The government's top highway safety regulator, emergency room physician Jeffrey Runge, recently sent auto executives into a panic by saying he would never let his children drive some SUV models that are more likely to roll over.

But Runge also pointedly noted that he would rather the industry tackle the safety issues than try to solve them by federal fiat.

"We cannot regulate fast enough to keep up with technological innovations, nor would we want to," Runge said in a speech last month in Detroit. "This administration will always prefer voluntary brilliance to enforced compliance."

Runge's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is completing a rating system that will tell consumers how likely SUVs are to roll over in emergency maneuvers. The agency is also exploring new safety standards to reduce injury when SUVs and pickup trucks slam into the sides of cars, but officials say it is unclear whether a regulation will follow. The process could take five years or more.

The marketplace might get there faster. The evidence is already in auto showrooms. Only a couple of years ago, tanks like the Ford Excursion epitomized the SUV craze. Smaller, car-like "cross-utility" vehicles such as the Honda Pilot are now the rage.

"I think that we are going to see more of what are called crossover designs -- SUVs that are less truck-like," said Brian O'Neill of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a longtime critic of SUV safety flaws. "We're going to see SUVs getting a little lower and cars getting a little taller."

Consumers bought nearly 3 million traditional SUVs last year, and the Ford Explorer remained the best-selling model of any size. But while demand for bigger SUVs remained flat, sales of smaller cross-utility vehicles surged by 23%, to more than 1.2 million, according to WardsAuto.com, a leading source of industry statistics.

A Harris Interactive poll released last week captures the mood of consumers. While 82% reject columnist Arianna Huffington's contention that SUV owners indirectly support terrorism by hogging fuel, 70% believe Congress should require SUVs to get better mileage. Smaller SUVs do that.

With war looming in the Middle East and with it the likelihood of higher gas prices, the debate may get more intense.