Gary A. Herwick
, Gregory J. Dana , and Edward H. Murphy spoke at the June 17 , 1999 , IMPA Meeting held at the Women's National Republican Club
in New_York City.
and Greg Dana are here representing the automobile manufacturers while Ed Murphy is here representing the American Petroleum Institute
...Gary A. Herwick is Manager of Fuels Activity at the General_Motors Public Policy Center in Detroit
has nearly 30 years of expertise in automotive emissions control , including engine development , regulatory compliance activities , and emissions testing.I must tell you that I put him at a disadvantage today ; he has one hand tied behind his back because he's an engineer and we don't have the overhead for him
We're going to start things off with Gary Herwick
.Gary A. Herwick
: I appreciate the opportunity to be here to speak with you on such an important issue to the automotive industry.I have spent most of my engineering career in the development of engine and emissions controls.My experience is probably two or three years old but I think I have quite a bit of applicable experience especially in the fuels issues , and I look forward to your questions and to our interaction.
What I'm here to speak to you about today is transportation fuel quality , in particular , sulfur in transportation fuels in both gasoline and diesel fuel.From my perspective and the perspective of the automotive industry , we have reached a point where we need to get sulfur out of transportation fuels-both gasoline and diesel fuels.
Gregory J. Dana : I'm glad to be here today to talk to you about sul-fur in fuel , which , as Gary
said , is a real important issue for us.
...Gary and I have been doing a lot of this work as a tag team in various parts of the country , talking to newspapers and others
Let me first talk to you about what the impacts of this are for all of us in_terms_of the public.Gary
made the comment already that this is equivalent to taking 54 million vehicles off the road in_terms_of their emissions , which is a huge hit.
There is a study we did that analyzes what happens with sulfur control on a state-by-state basis.It's very instructive , I think , to look at this from the standpoint of what states have to do now to get reductions in emissions.I know a lot of states have been fighting to get Inspection/Maintenance ( I/M ) programs in place.
If you've talked to anyone in those states , you know that's not a very popular thing.People don't like their cars brought in to be tested.
said , this has huge benefits in a lot of areas.Ozone is one of the biggest winners here because of all the NOx and hydrocarbon-emissions reductions we have- even in the West where API
would have much higher-level emissions of sulfur and therefore not as great a reduction.If you talk to people like the Western governors , they're very concerned about regional haze.They're concerned about the Grand Canyon-being able to see it and not having the haze obstructing that pretty view.
Understand that sulfur on its own is an emittant of the tail pipe of the car , which has some impact on haze.But also understand that the NOx emissions from vehicles form a secondary formation in the atmosphere and do cause some fine particulate.
spoke a bit about other countries and what they've done.The best way to put it is EPA
has now proposed rules to control sulfur , and it's finally moving EPA
to where we ought to be as a nation.Until that proposal came_out , we were essentially the laggard in the world in_terms_of sulfur control.Even though this country has long had , and continues to have , the tightest standards for motor vehicles and the strictest emissions standards , we had essentially the dirtiest fuel , and that doesn't make a lot of sense to us.
The European Union
has acted to reduce sulfur to a 50-ppm cap in 2005.Most of the other industrialized nations have acted.
Again , we think that the EPA
needs to go a little further than the proposal just to get to the point where we get to the future , using the advanced technologies as Gary
We are looking at lean-burn technologies , direct-injection gasoline engines that are being sold right now in Japan where there is low-sulfur fuel.The direct-injection gasoline engine , as compared to the gasoline engine of today , could have a benefit of 20- to 30-percent fuel economy , which is similar to what a diesel gets.That engine is very dependant on the type of catalyst Gary talked about , which is this lean NOx catalyst that's extremely sensitive to sulfur.
So going back to what I started with , if you look at getting emissions out of older cars , this is critical , enabling us to meet the current standards that EPA
is proposing , which is also critical.As we look farther down the road to future technologies , it's absolutely essential to get some of these new and advanced technologies into the marketplace.
Moderator : I want to thank both Greg and Gary
for giving us the industry's side of this situation.
and I are both on a group , trying to look at diesel fuel and the changes that might be necessary in diesel over the next five to 10 years , and hopefully we'll have more success in that area.But as an industry , since we have the same long-term objective , we shouldn't have the differences that we do.
Our job is to find the most economical , the most cost-efficient way of reducing emissions.It occurred to me that I'd like to get the calories out of ice cream.Unfortunately ice cream comes with calories.Unfortunately crude oil comes with sulfur.
A Murphy I don't really disagree with anything Gary
is saying.I think ( and let me emphasize ) we do need to dramatically reduce the sulfur content of gasoline.There is agreement in the petroleum industry on that.The issue is how do you go about it , and how quickly do you do it.
And the answer to those latter two questions is going to have a dramatic effect on the cost of doing it and the cost of price increases that consumers are likely to see.
I especially want to thank our three guests , Ed Murphy , Gary Herwick
, and Gregory Dana.