http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/25/politics/25DIES.html
January 25, 2001 Oil Industry Seeks Softening of Clinton Clean-Air Rules By DOUGLAS JEHL WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 - The oil industry has begun a major campaign for changes in the strict clean-air standards for buses and big trucks that were ordered late last year by the Clinton administration. Industry representatives are urging the Bush administration, Congress and the federal courts to revise the rules, which refiners say could lead to shortages and price increases for diesel fuel when the guidelines begin to take effect in 2006. The issue could provide an early test of willingness by the Bush administration and the Congress to challenge what critics have portrayed as hasty and misguided decisions by the Clinton administration on environmental policy. The new standards, which would affect the heaviest polluters on American roads, were portrayed by the Clinton administration and its allies as the most important clean-air advances in a generation. In expressing dissent, oil industry representatives have emphasized their support for measures aimed at reducing pollution from buses and trucks. But they say the new rules go too far and would impose unnecessary and potentially disruptive requirements on refiners. The National Petrochemical Refiners Association, which represents virtually all American refiners, plans to challenge the new rules in federal court as part of a broader bid to explore "basically every avenue for revision," Bob Slaughter, the group's general counsel, said. "We would hope that the new administration would be more interested in balancing energy supply and environmental concerns, because it's possible to strike a better balance," Mr. Slaughter said. In recent months, the oil industry has said repeatedly that it could accept new standards that would require as much as a 90 percent reduction in the sulfur content of the diesel fuel used by the buses and big rigs. But it has opposed the Clinton measure, which would require a 98 percent reduction, on grounds that the further cuts were environmentally unnecessary and could put some refiners out of business. A study conducted last year for the industry found that the Clinton standards could lead to a 12 percent shortfall in the supply of diesel, the main fuel for the transportation industry. That study said the cost could go up more than 15 cents a gallon. A spokesman for ExxonMobil, Jeanne Moore, said today that the company had joined others in endorsing the more moderate plan because it would "provide virtually the same environmental benefits as the E.P.A.'s more severe rule but at a lower cost to consumers, and without placing diesel fuel supply at risk." But in its own analysis, the Environmental Protection Agency concluded that shortages and price surges were unlikely, even with the steeper reduction in diesel content. It said the cost of the regulations would increase diesel fuel prices by only about three to five cents a gallon, while bringing far greater health benefits. The Clinton White House upheld those findings as part of the administrative process that preceded its announcement of the new standards in December. The Bush administration could amend the diesel rules only by restarting the time-consuming procedure that produced the new standards. But Congress could overturn the measure by a majority vote if it acts before March 17, and at least one senator, James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, has indicated that he might press for just such an action. At least two major oil refiners, British Petroleum and Tosco, have broken ranks within the industry by supporting the Clinton administration rules. The American Petroleum Institute, the industry's main trade group, has listed the issue as one of its major concerns, but a senior official said today that the group had not decided whether to join any formal challenge. "Frankly, we are looking at all of options on how to deal with it," the official, Edward H. Murphy, said. "We are supportive of the basic objectives, so we don't want to take action that would interfere with the environmental benefits." Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
