California emissions legislation may have far-reaching implications

It's no surprise that those most impacted by this ruling will be power plants and other heavy energy users in the state, but the aftermarket too will experience implications, and possibly in the very near term.

A/C sales impact

One provision in bill AB 32 could put an end to the do-it-yourself air conditioning market in the state by prohibiting the retail sale of R-134a, says Aaron Lowe, vice president, government affairs for AAIA. "If you are a retailer in California, you could be greatly affected."

According to Plotkin, early research suggests roughly 1.3 million pounds of R-134a are sold every year in California.

A similar proposal was considered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the late 1990s but was eventually rejected due to opposition from AAIA and the Automotive Refrigeration Products Institute (ARPI), another organization that Plotkin represents.

Lowe says that AAIA has partnered with ARPI in an effort to refute the bill's provision. They believe that environmentally responsible use of R-134a can be improved through education and awareness, as well as current industry efforts.

Martin Drigotas, manager of automotive refrigerants at DuPont, says their company is part of a cross-industry effort called the Improved Mobile Air Conditioning Cooperative Research Program, which also includes major automakers and other supplier companies like Delphi, Honeywell, Visteon and Denso. Also known as I-MAC, the group has been very aggressive at improving the environmental and energy impact of existing R-134a A/C systems for new vehicles.

A study by DuPont found that new technologies developed by I-MAC will result in both environmental and financial benefits to car owners, saving up to 10 to 20 billion liters of fuel annually by the year 2020. Also, the reduced refrigerant consumption and fuel use could in turn eliminate more than 120 million metric tons of CO2-equivalent emissions.

These efforts, though not universally adopted to date, "make sense and address the issue regarding containing R-134a, which is part of what we refer to as our 'responsible use' commitment." This is a real-world solution and it's being implemented and making an environmental difference, says Drigotas.

He tells us that DuPont is an advocate for global action on climate change but, with regards to the provision in AB 32, the company feels the solutions need to be taken in the context of a national or global program.

"In addition, our experience indicates strongly that these solutions should have a strong market-based component in order to be successful in the shortest period of time." The company is working with the state to help them "fashion a regulatory response to the bill that will moderate some of its shortcomings," says a position statement distributed by DuPont. They have already begun discussions on how the state may develop and capitalize on market mechanisms within the structure of the legislation.

Related legislation

There is no doubt today's automakers will also be affected by this new legislation. In 2002, a law was passed that required CARB to develop and adopt regulations for the reduction of greenhouse gases emitted by passenger cars and trucks. A recent report from ICF International, a consulting services firm, says, "The regulations have been promulgated and apply to motor vehicles manufactured in the 2009 model year and thereafter. Auto dealerships and manufacturers have challenged these regulations in court and the case is pending." They suggest that reductions that result from this regulation will be an important contributor to the emissions reductions needed to achieve the 2020 emissions limit established by AB 32. The Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA) contests that by limiting carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles, California is attempting to create a state-level fuel economy standard, because emissions are directly linked to fuel use, a right they firmly believe is reserved for the federal government.

In September, just after AB 32 was introduced, California filed a lawsuit against six automakers seeking monetary compensation for past greenhouse gas damages. According to a Reuters report, the suit is the first of its kind and the automakers had yet to comment on the topic when this issue went to print.

The trickle-down effect

Plotkin adds that retailers and manufacturers selling solvents, paints or any fluids with volatile organic compounds in the state "watch out," because there could eventually be some sort of "trickle-down effect." Anything that has a quantifiable global warming impact, regardless of how much or how little, will be up for review, he believes.

"The sky is the limit," says Plotkin. "CARB is going to take a swipe at low hanging fruit and then burrow in and look at other ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions." He tells us that they've communicated to CARB that all hydrofluorocarbons, a key ingredient in R-134a, are one-half of 1 percent of all emissions. CAWA, AAIA and ARPI plan to work closely with CARB to stay abreast of the issue. We're told that their initial discussions have gone fairly well.

Lowe and Plotkin warn the industry to pay attention to this issue. Once legislation is approved in California it usually affects national trends, they say.

For more information, contact Lowe at (301) 654-6664.