• Thank you for visiting HeavyEquipmentForums.com! Our objective is to provide industry professionals a place to gather to exchange questions, answers and ideas. We welcome you to register using the "Register" icon at the top of the page. We'd appreciate any help you can offer in spreading the word of our new site. The more members that join, the bigger resource for all to enjoy. Thank you!

Diesel fuel and politics

hackalot

Active Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
30
Location
Charlotte, NC
I know there have been other threads on this subject, but I think our founding fathers in the USA are turning over in their graves. Never have I seen as much proposed or actual legislation which will give new meaning to the phrase "law of unintended consequences".

Some of the states, with California leading the way, are trying to phase out the heavy equipment and trucking industries.:Banghead:mad:
 

Muffler Bearing

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2009
Messages
512
Location
Colorful Colorado
Occupation
Truck Mechanic
I think they are just trying to make them burn cleaner. There is nothing wrong with a cleaner burning engine. I think it's sad they were allowed to lag this far behind the auto industry. Our new Cummins ISX will never puff black smoke, the stacks are as chrome as the day they were made. The new PACCAR engine will hopefully be just as good. And Caterpillar can't make a clean on-road engine so they just give up? Talk about lead, follow or get out of the way!
 

Steve Frazier

Founder
Staff member
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
6,611
Location
LaGrangeville, N.Y.
I have to say I'm with hackalot on this. Today's engines burn much much cleaner than the engines of 20 years ago, yet they aren't clean enough? I'm all for clean air, but if we reach a point where only marginal improvements can be made for thousands of dollars per unit, isn't there a time we can say we're clean enough?

In California, they are requiring some machinery and heavy trucks to be retrofitted with modern diesels or be scrapped. When the owner purchased this equipment, it met the standards of the day and was bought in good faith. Now the government comes in and says they must be upgraded or replaced before they were scheduled to be retired? That's an unforeseen major expense to the operator and if nothing else is unfair. I'd love to see someone challenge the EPA on this, it seems unconstitutional to me.
 

Buckethead

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Messages
1,055
Location
Waterfront
Occupation
Operator
I have to say I'm with hackalot on this. Today's engines burn much much cleaner than the engines of 20 years ago, yet they aren't clean enough? I'm all for clean air, but if we reach a point where only marginal improvements can be made for thousands of dollars per unit, isn't there a time we can say we're clean enough?

In California, they are requiring some machinery and heavy trucks to be retrofitted with modern diesels or be scrapped. When the owner purchased this equipment, it met the standards of the day and was bought in good faith. Now the government comes in and says they must be upgraded or replaced before they were scheduled to be retired? That's an unforeseen major expense to the operator and if nothing else is unfair. I'd love to see someone challenge the EPA on this, it seems unconstitutional to me.

I'm with Steve on this one. Making new machines come out of the factory as less polluting is great! But requiring the upgrading of the existing equipment seems unfair. And unnecessary too, because older machines are not going to be run on a daily basis forever.
 

digger242j

Administrator
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Messages
6,646
Location
Southwestern PA
Occupation
Self employed excavator
I'm gonna stir the pot a little bit here... :stirthepot

A question, particularly for the California guys--If a candidate for public office in your state, ran on a platform of "rescind all the clean air laws", would that candidate have a chance of getting elected? Would it be a landslide one way or the other, or would it be a close race? Would it be an advantage or a disadvantage to a candidate to advocate any sort of relaxation of such rules, or does the advantage go to the candidate that advocates for an even harder line?

I'm asking, because I don't know the answer.

We, in this industry, have our own set of insights, which may or may not be shared by the majority of the population. I'm interested in what conclusions we can draw from recognizing the differences...
 

bill onthehill

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
661
Location
pa/ny border
I have to agree with Steve also. You don't hear them calling for upgrading all the older cars to today's standards. As long as an engine is running good it should only have to meet the specs. it was manufactured under. Regulatory agencies tend to justify their own existence.
 

Speedpup

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
1,214
Location
New York
Occupation
President and all else that needs done!
I have to say I'm with hackalot on this. Today's engines burn much much cleaner than the engines of 20 years ago, yet they aren't clean enough? I'm all for clean air, but if we reach a point where only marginal improvements can be made for thousands of dollars per unit, isn't there a time we can say we're clean enough?

In California, they are requiring some machinery and heavy trucks to be retrofitted with modern diesels or be scrapped. When the owner purchased this equipment, it met the standards of the day and was bought in good faith. Now the government comes in and says they must be upgraded or replaced before they were scheduled to be retired? That's an unforeseen major expense to the operator and if nothing else is unfair. I'd love to see someone challenge the EPA on this, it seems unconstitutional to me.

Steve/ anyone what is the criteria?


i would be done with my 85, 86, 87, 92 Lulls:ban
 

Orchard Ex

Super Moderator
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
1,051
Location
Southern MD
AFAIK in CA if you upgrade the engine in a older car or light truck (i.e. do a swap) it has to meet the new regs. not the regs in place for the model year of the vehicle. (somebody will correct me if I'm wrong)
I wonder if there could be a compromise reached for equipment for something similar, like if you upgrade the powerplant it needs to meet the new regs, but you can repair and run the original version for it's lifetime. Maybe also make a concession that no old iron can be brought into the state, but if it's already there it's OK? Maybe get the ACLU interested in taking the case? :dizzy
 

Steve Frazier

Founder
Staff member
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
6,611
Location
LaGrangeville, N.Y.
I'm trying to remember what I've read, I think it's machines and trucks over 10 years old. Orchard Ex is correct, the repowering must meet current emission standards.

There was a period a number of years ago where the State of California was buying up classic cars and crushing them in order to improve their air quality. What a crying shame that was!
 

John C.

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
12,870
Location
Northwest
Occupation
Machinery & Equipment Appraiser
Digger242j,
I am intrigued by your premise. In Washington state I have no doubt that the tree hugggers on the west side would not vote for rescinding regs but the farmers on the east side would make it a landslide for common sense.

Maybe a better way to show how the world would change is to just shutdown all the diesel engines for a week or better yet, a month. Then we would all have the chance to actually see, hear, smell and feel the real affects of diesel smoke. Other than empty store shelves, dried up gas station pumps and the stoppage of all the trappings of society I believe few would know the difference.

Good Thread!
 

td25c

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2009
Messages
5,250
Location
indiana
We all need clean air,I thought the trees took the carbon dioxide out of the air and give back the oxygen ,I think it's called photosynthesis.The government has gone to far with this issue,"cap & trade","carbon credits".They put forth these programs in the guise of cleaner air ,when it is really just money changing hands.We not only have some of the most clean & efficiant equipment in the world but also one of the cleanest countrys in the world.The government needs to step back and let the trees do there work,so we as equipment operators can do our work.
 
Last edited:

mudmaker

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Messages
136
Location
Colorado
It really has nothing to do with clean air. It is all about money and power! The more you can regulate and control the more power it gives the guys making the rules. I agree the Founders are turning over in their graves!!
 

DarrylMueller

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
309
Location
Altamont Pass, Livermore, CA
Occupation
Excavating Contractor & Operator
Appointed not elected!

A question, particularly for the California guys--If a candidate for public office in your state, ran on a platform of "rescind all the clean air laws", would that candidate have a chance of getting elected? Would it be a landslide one way or the other, or would it be a close race? Would it be an advantage or a disadvantage to a candidate to advocate any sort of relaxation of such rules, or does the advantage go to the candidate that advocates for an even harder line?

The CARB burocrats are appointed, not elected. All the say in California comes from 3 population centers. We do not have the dirty air of the past. It's all about money. California Adopts Low Carbon Fuel Standard "This is Cap On Trade"
New measure will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase use of alternative fuels. This is about trading or buying and selling of carbon credits, among other non-productive or rationing of energy. Just another hand in your pocket, steeling our money.
 

digger242j

Administrator
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Messages
6,646
Location
Southwestern PA
Occupation
Self employed excavator
The CARB burocrats are appointed, not elected.

I didn't ask whether the CARB people were elected. I'm sure they're appointed by, and are responsible to, somebody that is elected.

John C understood why I was asking. Does the very strict nature of California's emission regulations enjoy the support of the electorate, or not?
 

JDOFMEMI

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2007
Messages
3,074
Location
SoCal
Sad to say that any candidate who ran on reversing these rules, or slowing the new ones would only get the vote of the business people. We are far outnumbered by the vast urban educated masses who believe anything that makes noise, dust, smoke, etc. is evil and should be outlawed. This is perpetuated by the media, who has convinced the masses that our air is dirty, our water poluted, and our lifestyle generally at odds with the world. The opposite is true. Our air is cleaner now than in the 70's, despite the fact that nearly 4 times as many people live here.

I have stood and spoken at CARB board meetings, along with hundreds of other business owners, only to be treated like we are a bunch of baby killers. The other side parades out the poor welfare mother who lives in subsidised housing near the port, and has small children with athsma. That plays to the press better than a hard working business owner who has supported the state for 20 years.

The rule as passed into law now required all large fleets, over 5,000 fleet horsepower, to register by the first of last month, and no fleet, large or small, can add a non-tier engine to their fleet. The tier 1 was introduced in roughly 1996, depending on horsepower.
Right now, any pre 1996 equipment is worthless in CA. If it was registered in your fleet by the deadline, you can continue to operate it, but you can't buy another one, or sell it in state. These machines are now basically worth scrap iron price in this state.

The next catch is the fleet averaging, that says you must retire or replace up to 20% of the total installed horsepower of your fleet each year untill your emissions are down to the formula set by the state. This is where it gets even more fuzzy, because reality has nothing to do with it, only what you can document. One old engine, such as a D-8K you use only 300 hours per year, can cancel out the D-8T in your fleet that works 3,000 hours.
You can designate a machine "low use" and then use it up to 100 hrs per year. Once you make that designation, you may NEVER use it over 100 hrs per year, under penalty of law.

I am all for cleaner air, but this rule, and many like it in CA are the death of many industries. CARB's own research has shown that by only relying on the federal rules at the manufacturer level, we will get the same level of reduced emissions, just about 3 years later than they will by spending BILLIONS of dollars trying to retrofit old iron, and force fleets into replacing viable machines earlier than economically feasable.
 

EddieWalker

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2008
Messages
110
Location
Tyler, Texas
I was born in California and lived there until 2002. In the late 90's, it started getting to me. Not so much the emission laws, but just all the BS that it took to make a buck and be in business. The state, counties and cities all seem to have it in their minds that new business isn't important. It's hard to describe without going into conspiracy theory and extreme political views, but the reality is that those who run the state have no regard to what it takes to create income.

To make it worthwhile, I had to charge ridiculous amounts to remain legal. If I worked without permits, I could make a fair living, stay busy and competitive. I always wonder how many contractors are legal and how they can make a profit paying the fees required to stay in business, plus the taxes and still find clients willing to pay enough to turn a profit. If you are doing government work, that might work out, but if you are working for private citizens, it's just about impossible.

Adding more and more restrictions on equipment just makes it harder to make a profit. For me, it was either leave the state and find a place that I could make a good living, or continue to take the chance of working illegally. I moved to Texas and after a few slow years, have done fairly well. This is my best year ever, and it's just getting better.

The guys that I know back in California laughed when I left, but now are either talking about moving out, or actively trying to sell their homes to leave California. The weather is nice, but otherwise, there isn't any reason to stay there. There are other places where you can make a living without all the BS.

I honestly don't know if it's possible to vote out the problem. The main voting blocks are very extreme and active in their views. They are in denial of what they have caused, and in my opinion, their mindset is that they haven't done enough and need to do more to make everything right. It's not failure, but a lack of effort in social programs, environmental restrictions and taxation. Why anybody would remain there is really a mystery to me.

Eddie
 

Speedpup

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
1,214
Location
New York
Occupation
President and all else that needs done!
So I guess if your starting in business you need to buy a 96 or newer machine which is costly.
 

BIG D

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
66
Location
wisc usa
more than meets the eye

It will take a smarter man than me to understand the thinking of the over strict laws of cal. To my thinking the repowering of older machine that are only used on a limited basis defeats the thought of a lower carbon foot print it starts with the mining of ore for the new engine too replace that d8k engine. the transportation costs of the ore the fuel used manu. etc the waste over comes any rational thinking of the common sense man . I can go on but my point being common sense over rules overthinking thanks the BIG D
 

Red Bank

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2008
Messages
323
Location
North Carolina
I have been thinking about this a lot today. If you want to change the voters' minds and opinions, apply the same rules to them. Outlaw any car that is 4 years or older and require them to jump through the same hoops as an equipment owner. I agree with earlier posts about the emissions being cleaner now and when do you say enough is enough? This is the best it gets? I have an 08 F550 service truck that has a diesel particulate filter on it, dumbest idea I have ever heard of, at least I thought when I got it! It shoots diesel fuel into the exhaust stream to burn out the emissions caught by the filter. We are using more fuel to make it cleaner? Now, on the other hand, I can fire up my 81 Mack and it will shoot small black particles everywhere when it first starts. I realized that is what my DPF is trying to prevent, and I like to see the "black as coal" smoke roll out of the Mack when I lay the pedal down, but after driving newer trucks I kind of feel a little guilty about the smoke. But, I think that in the past ten years the research and development of cleaner burning diesel engines has got to the point where it should be good enough. Road tractors dont leave black streaks on trailers any more, I can drive my farm tractor all day long and not smell like diesel smoke. This should be good enough! It is a shame that Cat is dropping on road engines, but I can't blame them for saying "we quit, let us know how you do!". The problem with all of this is it starts in California, but eventually reaches all of us. I don't know, just my opinion!
 
Top