Share “Proposed EPA standards aimed at improving...”

Proposed EPA standards aimed at improving the environment could fuel higher gasoline prices

The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed a new “Tier 3” gasoline standard that would reduce the sulfur content allowed in gasoline and require vehicle manufacturers to improve engines to reduce emissions.
by Adam Wilmoth Modified: May 7, 2013 at 9:11 pm •  Published: May 8, 2013

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's proposed rules for cleaner-burning gasoline and more efficient car and truck engines are drawing predictable responses.

The Tier 3 Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards Program would reduce the sulfur content allowed in gasoline and require vehicle manufacturers to improve engines to reduce emissions.

The EPA has described the rules as an extension of the Tier 2 standards rolled out beginning in 2000. Those rules, among other things, reduced gasoline sulfur levels to 30 parts per million, down from 300. The proposed new rules would drop that level to 10 parts per million.

Predictably, the proposal has drawn praise from environmental organizations and criticism from the oil and refining industries.

“These Tier 3 standards are absolutely necessary. They are absolutely the right thing to do,” said Jesse Prentice-Dunn, a policy analyst with the Sierra Club in Washington. “Right now, we have more than one in three Americans living where the air is sometimes unsafe to breathe. We've got record childhood asthma. Air pollution is causing a whole host of health issues. These standards will substantially reduce smog-forming pollution and dramatically reduce asthma attacks, premature deaths from air pollution, and it will make a big, big difference.”

The EPA said the rules would add about 1 cent per gallon to the cost of gasoline and add about $130 to the cost of new cars and trucks while annually preventing 820 to 2,400 premature deaths, 3,200 hospital admissions and asthma-related emergency room visits and 1.8 million days of lost time at school, work and minor activities.

The oil and gas industry said the EPA is exaggerating potential benefits and underestimating costs.

Patrick Kelley, the American Petroleum Institute's senior downstream policy adviser, called the proposal “hard to justify and potentially very harmful.”

Continue reading this story on the...

by Adam Wilmoth
Energy Editor
Adam Wilmoth returned to The Oklahoman as energy editor in 2012 after working for four years in public relations. He previously spent seven years as a business reporter at The Oklahoman, including five years covering the state's energy sector....
+ show more


The massive refinery investments it would require could drive up the cost of making gasoline and weaken the nation's energy security without producing much, if any, environmental benefit.”

Patrick Kelley,
American Petroleum Institute

Trending Now


AROUND THE WEB

  1. 1
    Tulsa secret Santa pays off Wal-Mart layaways, hands out gift cards
  2. 2
    Cuban-born Tulsans have different perspectives on policy shift
  3. 3
    Bo Pelini rips Nebraska A.D. Shawn Eichorst in expletive-filled talk during final meeting with...
  4. 4
    More theaters bail on 'The Interview' in wake of hackers' threat
  5. 5
    Tulsa Washington alum Tyler Lockett on AFCA Coaches' All-American Team
+ show more