Clean Air Reports
Search
•
RSS Feed
Executive Summary
As the new home of NCPIRG's environmental work,
Environment North Carolina can be contacted with any questions regarding this
report.
Despite tighter automobile
emission standards over the last three decades, North Carolina continues to
face significant automobile-related air pollution problems. Increasing the use
of advanced-technology vehicles—those that use cleaner, alternative fuels
or new technological advances to achieve dramatically improved environmental
performance—could alleviate the state’s air pollution problems while
reducing North Carolina’s contribution to global warming and enhancing
the state’s energy security.
Policies such as the Zero-Emission Vehicle program (part of the Low-Emission
Vehicle II emission standards adopted by California, Massachusetts, New York
and other states) can help bring increased numbers of advanced- technology vehicles
to North Carolina. The inefficient use of petroleum to power the state’s
transportation system poses serious threats to North Carolina’s environment
and economy.
• During the summer of 2002, air pollution monitors in North Carolina registered
612 exceedances of EPA health standards for smog on 51 separate days. Light-duty
vehicles such as cars, pick-up trucks, minivans and sport utility vehicles (SUVs)
are responsible for an estimated one-fifth of all emissions of nitrogen oxides
and one-quarter of all emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) to the
air nationwide. Nitrogen oxides and VOCs are the chemical components of smog.
• In 1996, concentrations of soot and air toxics in North Carolina’s
air were sufficient to pose a statewide average cancer risk of one new case
for approximately every 3,200 residents—well above the EPA’s one-in-a-million
cancer risk bench-mark for air toxics. Mobile sources, including cars and trucks,
are responsible for about 41 percent of all air toxics emissions by weight nationwide.
• The use of personal cars and trucks was responsible for about 23 percent
of North Carolina’s 1990 emissions of carbon dioxide, which causes global
warming. Global warming poses severe potential threats to coastal and forest
ecosystems and public health in the state.
• North Carolina’s over reliance on petroleum for transportation leaves
the state susceptible to price spikes and supply disruptions. These problems
will become more severe over the next several decades as global petroleum supplies
tighten. Advanced-technology vehicles can alleviate many of these problems.
• Advanced-technology vehicles can significantly reduce emissions of smog-forming
pollutants and air toxics from North Carolina cars and light trucks. The current
generation of hybrid-electric vehicles—such as the Toyota Prius and Honda
Civic—are approximately 90 percent cleaner than the average vehicle on
sale in North Carolina today. Clean conventional vehicles with state-of-the-art
emission-control technology are now being manufactured that attain similar pollution
reductions.
• Advanced-technology vehicles can also reduce North Carolina’s emissions
of greenhouse gases, which cause global warming. Vehicles that take advantage
of the benefits of hybrid-electric technology can produce about half as much
global warming-inducing carbon dioxide per mile as conventional vehicles.
• Many advanced-technology vehicles also enhance North Carolina’s
energy security by improving fuel efficiency or using alternative fuels such
as natural gas, electric power or hydrogen.
Several types of advanced-technology vehicles are “ready to roll,”
yet availability of these vehicles in North Carolina is limited.
• Hybrid-electric vehicles: More than 65,000 hybrid-electric vehicles have
been sold in the U.S. since 1999. As many as 60 percent of potential vehicle
buyers in a recent survey stated that they would consider buying a hybrid, yet
only three models of hybrid vehicles are currently available to North Carolina
consumers.
• Natural gas vehicles: More than 120,000 natural gas vehicles are currently
on American roads in a variety of styles and configurations. Yet, only one automaker
is thus far offering them for sale to the general public. Lack of refueling
opportunities has hindered the further spread of these vehicles, and limitations
in the supply of natural gas make them unsuitable as a long-term alternative.
• Clean conventional vehicles: Seven automakers now manufacture vehicles
that meet California’s rigorous partial Zero-Emission Vehicle (PZEV) emission
standards. However, most of these vehicles have only been made available to
consumers in states that have adopted Zero-Emission Vehicle programs.
• Battery-electric vehicles: Automakers have sold more than 10,000 zero-emission
battery-electric vehicles to consumers in
California and other states over the last decade. However, no major automaker
is currently selling battery-electric vehicles to consumers.
• Other types of vehicles—such as “plug-in” hybrids and
hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles—also show the potential for significant environmental
benefits, but will require further research and development before they become
commercially feasible.
Adopting the Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) program would put hundreds of thousands
of advanced-technology vehicles on North Carolina’s roads by the end of
the decade, at minimal cost to automakers and potential net benefits to consumers.
• The ZEV program would require automakers to sell approximately 107,000
hybrid-electric vehicles and 587,000 clean conventional vehicles in North Carolina
between 2007 and 2011, with the numbers increasing over time.
• Installing the technology to meet these targets would cost automakers
approximately $26 million in 2007, increasing to $49 million in 2011. The incremental
cost of the program in 2007 represents about 0.14 percent of sales by North
Carolina new-car dealers in 2001 and 0.004 percent of the gross revenue of the
six major automakers. Offsetting financial benefits stemming from technology
improvements that can be exported to other vehicle lines, assistance in complying
with other regulatory standards, and consumers’ willingness to pay more
for some ZEV-compliant vehicles will reduce these costs further.
• Consumers are unlikely to be negatively affected by the ZEV program.
Most automakers have chosen not to pass on the additional cost of conforming
with PZEV emission standards. Should the cost of hybrid-electric vehicles decrease
(as is
anticipated), and gasoline prices rise, many consumers will see a net financial
benefit from purchasing more efficient hybrid-electric vehicles.
Adoption of the Low-Emission Vehicle II and Zero-Emission Vehicle programs is
essential to getting clean, advanced technology vehicles onto North Carolina’s
roads.
• The ZEV program would ensure a consistent supply of clean vehicles for
North Carolina consumers, create economies of scale necessary to allow the construction
of alternative-fuel infrastructure, set high standards for vehicle technology,
and help guide the development of even cleaner automotive technologies in the
years to come. The goals of a ZEV requirement in North Carolina are attainable,
and achieving them would be beneficial to the state. To ensure successful implementation
of the program, the state should take a leadership role in coordinating the
expansion of alternative-fuel infrastructure and educating the public about
clean cars, and work to secure resources to support those efforts.
|
