First Name | Bill |
---|---|
Last Name | Davis |
Email Address | williamedavis@cox.net |
Affiliation | ACPA/EUCA/SCCA |
Subject | The Potemkin Regulation of Portable Equipment |
Comment | Remarks to the California Air Resources Board, regarding the Portable Equipment regulations, March 22, 2007 When we last met to discuss the proposed amendments in Bakersfield, we noted how thin your ranks had become and quoted from Shakespeare’s Henry the Fifth about your “happy few, your band of brothers.” We would like to welcome new members Supervisor Jerry Hill and Dr. Daniel Sperling, to the “band” and to these discussions. Today I would like to use an example from Russian history to put the current state of the portable regulations in perspective. Catherine the Great made an “Imperial Tour” of the Ukraine and the Crimea in 1787, at the behest of her former lover Prince Grigory Potemkin, the new governor general for the region. For much of the trip they sailed on a barge down the Dnieper River. Potemkin pointed out all the improvements he had “built,” with happy villagers singing and waving from the shore. They greeted Catherine with impressive displays including a regiment of 200 beautiful sharp-shooting Amazons, 20,000 rockets and 55,000 burning pots spelling out the initials of the empress at various stops. All this required a certain amount of stage management. Orders went out to hide the beggars, paint facades, and erect stage fronts to conceal the real shacks along the river. So was born the expression "Potemkin Village,” using the Prince's name as a synonym for “sham,” creating a public perception at odds with reality. We believe the phrase “Potemkin Regulation” aptly describes the current state of the regulation of portable construction equipment in California. According to the Census Bureau, there are more than 234,000 construction companies in the state but according to the Economic Impact Analysis in your Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR), only 2,246 private companies have registered 22,097 pieces of equipment in the PERP. If only half of the 234,000 companies owned only one portable engine there should be more than 109,000 units in the PERP—and construction is only one of 34 industries impacted by the portable regulations. The Economic Impact section of the ISOR says only 10,000 “older engines” will register in the next three years; we believe that number should be closer to 100,000 additional engines and, given the characteristics of our industry, at least two thirds of those engines are Tier 0 units. The ISOR estimates the registration cost to industry at $ 6.6 million for these 10,000 engines; if the ratios hold, we think registration cost will be closer to $67 million over the next three years—and that does not include the cost of replacement of Tier 0 equipment by December 31, 2009—which, given this example, would be $1.65 billion. This regulation will not achieve the goal of actually reducing emissions from this equipment by ignoring this reality. To regulate this equipment you have to know where it is, who owns it and what they do with it. To do that, you must reopen the PERP to Tier 0 engines and vastly increase your outreach efforts. Second, given the scope of our equipment fleet, you must understand that you cannot make it disappear by Imperial decree. The industry must have more time to acquire new equipment that will result in real emission reductions. Equipment manufacturers are licking their lips at the opportunity to replace 100,000 California units, but given their levels of production and global competition for this equipment, it will take them at least 15 years to replace the fleet. Part of this demand for certified engines would normally be achieved by buying newer used equipment, but not with the current “resident engine” rules. No equipment owner in California will be selling compliant engines on the used market unless they are going out of business. Our industry must have access to the global market of certified equipment, including Tier 1 and Tier 2 machines from outside the state. Finally, we remind the Board of the first rule of construction—“Measure twice, cut once.” To that end, we request that Dr. Sawyer appoint a Construction Industry Task Force to take the portable regulations out of the Potemkin world and into the real world by: •Accurately measuring the scope of the affected industries •Consolidate all regulations impacting the construction industry •Work with the agency to develop meaningful emission reductions to benefit all Californians. We believe this taskforce should consist of Dr. Sawyer, Dr. Sperling for his expertise in the world of power systems, representatives of the major construction associations, construction equipment manufacturers, CIAQC and representatives from the environmental community. We hope our recommendations will meet with the Board’s approval so that we can all move forward from these contentious proceedings to an environment of understanding, cooperation and truly improved air quality. Bill Davis works with the American Concrete Pumping Association, Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition, Engineering and Utility Contractors Association, and the Southern California Contractors Association to inform their members on issues involving air quality regulations in California. |
Attachment | |
Original File Name | |
Date and Time Comment Was Submitted | 2007-03-21 08:44:28 |
If you have any questions or comments please contact Clerk of the Board at (916) 322-5594.