Водителям долины Сан-Хоакин в Калифорнии грозит штраф в 29 млн долларов за смог

On Sept. 6, 2011 — exactly 15 years ago to the day — my “‘Houston, San Joaquin Valley Has A Problem” [sic]: Cars Causing Smog” commentary was published at the California Progress Report. That opinion piece is now re-published in its entirety below. In California, or more precisely the San Joaquin Valley, our problem isn’t droughts, hurricanes or floods; it’s smog – at least right now it is. Beginning this year assessed will be an annual $29 million penalty, the money presumably going to help clean this smog up. San Joaquin Valley motorists will have to pay an extra $12 added to what would be our usual registration fees. Is this fair? The penalty may be justified, but the fact that Valley motorists are on the hook for this expense may not be. And here is why. This all came about last year due to non-attainment in the San Joaquin Valley of California’s one-hour ozone standard. In fact, according to FresnoBee.com News Blog, “Earth” column manager Mark Grossi, “The federal one-hour ozone standard was approved in November 1990. That’s more than two decades ago, and the Valley still has not attained it.” California’s standard is even more stringent than the federal standard. So, just what is California’s one-hour ozone standard? Regarding Ambient Air Quality Standards for California, California Air Resources Board (ARB) data indicate the one-hour standard for Ozone (O3) is 0.09 parts per million (ppm). And also according to ARB, “The primary source of smog in California is motor vehicles.” I don’t believe anyone is debating this. For what it’s worth, the eight-hour California ozone standard is 0.070 ppm. ARB so defines and describes smog as follows: “A combination of smoke and other particulates, ozone, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides and other chemically reactive compounds which, under certain conditions of weather and sunlight, may result in a murky brown haze that causes adverse health effects.” The problem is pinpointing exactly where this pollution is coming from. If the smog in question is the result of car exhaust exclusively, then fine, the fine is justified. But what if it’s not, exclusively from cars, that is? The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) in June 2010 released its “California Transportation: Planning for a Better Future” report. Report authors Louise Bedsworth and Ellen Hanak note, “Heavy duty vehicles (trucks and buses) and off-road sources (construction equipment, trains, farm equipment, and the like) are now the largest contributors to transportation-related smog-forming emissions. These sources have been less-regulated than passenger vehicles, and their emissions have been growing. A leading source of growth is increased goods movement through the state’s ports and along its freeways.” But this does not mean that automobiles that rely on fossil fuels and internal combustion to enable them to operate aren’t polluters – they are. But taken as a whole, they are not the gross polluters that the heavy-duty vehicles and off-road equipment pointed out above apparently are. And therein lies the problem. Here’s the breakdown. What I had to offer as well as in citing PPIC authors Bedsworth and Hanak from the report at Examiner.com on Jan. 6, 2010, better than a year-and-a-half ago, I wrote: “And, whereas in 1975, in the transportation sector 70 percent of smog-forming emissions in California were private-passenger-vehicle-produced and 30 percent were contributed by ‘Heavy-duty [sic] vehicles (trucks & [sic] buses) and off-road sources (construction equipment, trains, farm equipment, and the like),’ in 2005, the ‘heavy-duty’ and ‘off-road and other’ categories were responsible for the lion’s share – approximately 75 percent, and private passenger vehicles were responsible for the remainder – roughly 25 percent.” That’s within the transportation sector, meaning there is smog from other sources – stationary and otherwise – as well. My understanding is that motor vehicle’s [sic] contribution of smog-forming emissions in the Valley is less than 50 percent. If I am correct, mandating Valley motorists pick up the entire smog penalty tab doesn’t seem entirely fair. And as Grossi points out, the Valley needs to be in attainment of California’s one-hour ozone standard. So make no mistake. The way we’re going about achieving this is what’s fueling the $29 million debate.