Oil & Fuel California's Tough new rules for Diesel Engines

[Cap-n-Cray]

Like the benefit of ETBE?

Cary

 

[bx23barry]

California's air emsission are already so low that the majority of their air pollution comes from CHINA.....

So I guess there is no room for improvement in your mind. I know what smog looks like and what clean air looks like. I like the look of clean air. There is less and less of it as more Americans use more fuel. I have never understood why farmers and off highway equipment users (along with industrial users) that are in business should be allowed a "free pass" to "pump smog" while the normal American private citizen without the resources of these businesses has to pay to clean up the air. It amounts to welfare for the rich and they don't need it.

So much for my soap box.

 

[ultrarunner]

Maybe my take is little different from some... I know of NO ONE in favor of dirty air. It's already illegal to operate smoking vehicles and one anonymous telephone call will put a quick stop to anyone trying to.

I've always believed in paying a little more to buy quality equipment and at a minimum following the manufacturer's recommended maintenance schedule.

My CAT D3 Dozer is a perfect example... I'm mandated by the city to maintain firebreaks around my property... I go out and buy a Dozer giving me the best firebreaks the Fire Dept has ever seen.... I've gotten my "Seat" time down to about 12 hours per year... Now some politician is telling me my 12 hours of Dozer time per year to comply with the local fire ordinance will be outlawed because my well maintained Dozer isn't new enough???

My Grandfather instilled in me that quality equipment, properly maintained, will last a lifetime... my objection is that a lifetime is now being determined by politicians in Sacramento.

I simply refuse to join the mentality of a throw-away society... because, in essence, this is exactly what this law mandates... throwing away perfectly serviceable equipment, EXPENSIVE equipment, simply because it is not new.

The kids in school are being bombarded with the 3 "R's" Recycle, Reduce and Reuse. Funny how this seems not to apply to anything with a Internal Combustion Engine... at least not in my home state of California.

I apologize to anyone I've offended... but sometimes I feel my entire way of life is being regulated away...

 

[john_bud]

Hate to break up a great conspiracy theory, but no law can be retroactively active, previous hardware is always grandfathered into it.....unless in this case it is a big fleet.

QUOTE]


Not true. Here is WI, the DNR can make laws, rules regulations that are enforced on existing structures. Case in point, they determined that waterways are negatively impacted by "large" docks and floating swim platforms. They outlawed them with the stroke of a pen -> none of them being elected either. People with docks that have been in place for years are just out of luck.

jb

 

[daTeacha]

To clarify, by "phase-in" I simply meant that new equipment should meet tougher standards. Older stuff should be required to meet the standards in existence when it was manufactured. If it can't it should be taken out of service. By simple attritition, the amount of older, more polluting equipment will gradually decrease, although there will always be a few antiques running around.

I don't think the government or anyone else should mandate retrofitting equipment (either private, corporate, or public) to meet standards that weren't in existence when the stuff was built unless they are willing to underwrite the expense. Working in public education in Ohio, I'm very familiar with unfunded mandates that force us to redirect money from needs that the local Board of Ed. feels are more critical.

The exception to that idea is with something like a large power plant that was intended to last many, many years from the outset and for which the cost of compliance with pollution standards is going to passed along to the consumer anyways.

A dozer or tractor is an entirely different story. Perhaps when an engine is overhauled or replaced the exhaust emissions should be improved, but not until then.

 

[Z-Michigan]

I strongly agree with Rich.

 

[bx23barry]

Maybe my take is little different from some... I know of NO ONE in favor of dirty air. It's already illegal to operate smoking vehicles and one anonymous telephone call will put a quick stop to anyone trying to.

I've always believed in paying a little more to buy quality equipment and at a minimum following the manufacturer's recommended maintenance schedule.

My CAT D3 Dozer is a perfect example... I'm mandated by the city to maintain firebreaks around my property... I go out and buy a Dozer giving me the best firebreaks the Fire Dept has ever seen.... I've gotten my "Seat" time down to about 12 hours per year... Now some politician is telling me my 12 hours of Dozer time per year to comply with the local fire ordinance will be outlawed because my well maintained Dozer isn't new enough???

My Grandfather instilled in me that quality equipment, properly maintained, will last a lifetime... my objection is that a lifetime is now being determined by politicians in Sacramento.

I simply refuse to join the mentality of a throw-away society... because, in essence, this is exactly what this law mandates... throwing away perfectly serviceable equipment, EXPENSIVE equipment, simply because it is not new.

The kids in school are being bombarded with the 3 "R's" Recycle, Reduce and Reuse. Funny how this seems not to apply to anything with a Internal Combustion Engine... at least not in my home state of California.

I apologize to anyone I've offended... but sometimes I feel my entire way of life is being regulated away...

I agree it sucks to not be able to use serviceable equipment, but the fact is your dozer and any other equipment could be sold out of state (or out of country) and you and others could buy new compliant equipment without "terrible" hardship. It seems a small price to pay for the good of all. Of course that really doesn't help clean the air worldwide but we really have to start somewhere. If cleaner equipment is required in Calif. The manufactures will make them available everywhere. Without Calif. leading the way in the 60s (I remember the stink then and I had to put PVC on my 50 ford) we would be more behind the eight ball than we are now.
Man i keep jumping back on that soap box. Sorry just my take.

 

[bx23barry]

On the one hand I am all for reduced air pollution. I don't have an issue with a reasonable, phased-in standard that applies to newly purchased equipment. But all the stuff about getting rid of old equipment that may not be all that old seems like a bad idea.

The same type law has been in effect on over the road trucks for awhile now. Most older trucks in Calif. are being re-powered with compliant engines. Re-powering off highway equipment may also be possible as the law kicks in (like Japan has done for years). In my mind aggressive measures are needed and these are not a bad start.

To cut to the chase, I think any decent person should get the @#$ out of Kalifornia as quickly as they can. That state is nuts. An increasing number of states are nuts, but Kali has always been on the bleeding edge of nutso ideas.

The fact is Calif. has the 7th largest economy in the world so maybe what others think is nuts ain't so bad in reality.

As another noted, much of California's pollution comes from China (similar to how much of my state's pollution is blown in from Chicago and Gary Indiana). California could probably clean its air more by refusing entry to Chinese goods and therefore causing their factories to shut down (since California ports are the entry port for so much of the Chinese stuff sold across the US, and the US is one of if not the biggest consumer of Chinese products) than by anything they can do with their own emissions.

I would be all for not allowing any imports into the country unless they were made with some international standard for pollution and wages. I wonder how all the walmart/tractor supply/harbor freight shoppers would like that?

I don't see any brains in exempting diesels below 25hp either. California and other states already regulate lawnmowers and weed whackers to a high degree; why exempt small diesel equipment? The idea of an ant army of BX24's seems entirely possible. The introduction of the federal gas guzzler tax back in 1991 pretty much killed the luxury car market while creating the luxury SUV market - even bigger vehicles getting even lower mileage per gallon. Yeah, brilliant.

I totally agree.

 

[California]

The fact is Calif. has the 7th largest economy in the world so maybe what others think is nuts ain't so bad in reality.

Shush. Quiet, Barry!

Z-Michigan you wouldn't like it here. Nobody comes here any more, it's too crowded. Watch old Hollywood Squares episodes with MrJimi to see what it's really like.

 

[Cap-n-Cray]

I just moved from Southern California. Is it still considered in the USA?

Cary