Comment Log Display

Remarks to the California Air Resources Board, regarding the
Portable Equipment regulations, March 22, 2007

When we last met to discuss the proposed amendments in
Bakersfield, we noted how thin your ranks had become and quoted
from Shakespeare’s Henry the Fifth about your “happy few, your
band of brothers.”  We would like to welcome new members
Supervisor Jerry Hill and Dr. Daniel Sperling, to the “band” and
to these discussions. 

Today I would like to use an example from Russian history to put
the current state of the portable regulations in perspective. 

Catherine the Great made an “Imperial Tour” of the Ukraine and the
Crimea in 1787, at the behest of her former lover Prince Grigory
Potemkin, the new governor general for the region. For much of the
trip they sailed on a barge down the Dnieper River.  Potemkin
pointed out all the improvements he had “built,” with happy
villagers singing and waving from the shore. They greeted
Catherine with impressive displays including a regiment of 200
beautiful sharp-shooting Amazons, 20,000 rockets and 55,000
burning pots spelling out the initials of the empress at various
stops.  All this required a certain amount of stage management.
Orders went out to hide the beggars, paint facades, and erect
stage fronts to conceal the real shacks along the river.
 
So was born the expression "Potemkin Village,” using the Prince's
name as a synonym for “sham,” creating a public perception at odds
with reality. We believe the phrase “Potemkin Regulation” aptly
describes the current state of the regulation of portable
construction equipment in California.

According to the Census Bureau, there are more than 234,000
construction companies in the state but according to the Economic
Impact Analysis in your Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR), only
2,246 private companies have registered 22,097 pieces of equipment
in the PERP. If only half of the 234,000 companies owned only one
portable engine there should be more than 109,000 units in the
PERP—and construction is only one of 34 industries impacted by the
portable regulations.

The Economic Impact section of the ISOR says only 10,000 “older
engines” will register in the next three years; we believe that
number should be closer to 100,000 additional engines and, given
the characteristics of our industry, at least two thirds of those
engines are Tier 0 units. The ISOR estimates the registration cost
to industry at $ 6.6 million for these 10,000 engines; if the
ratios hold, we think registration cost will be closer to $67
million over the next three years—and that does not include the
cost of replacement of Tier 0 equipment by December 31,
2009—which, given this example, would be $1.65 billion.

This regulation will not achieve the goal of actually reducing
emissions from this equipment by ignoring this reality. To
regulate this equipment you have to know where it is, who owns it
and what they do with it. To do that, you must reopen the PERP to
Tier 0 engines and vastly increase your outreach efforts.

Second, given the scope of our equipment fleet, you must
understand that you cannot make it disappear by Imperial decree. 
The industry must have more time to acquire new equipment that
will result in real emission reductions. Equipment manufacturers
are licking their lips at the opportunity to replace 100,000
California units, but given their levels of production and global
competition for this equipment, it will take them at least 15
years to replace the fleet.
 
Part of this demand for certified engines would normally be
achieved by buying newer used equipment, but not with the current
“resident engine” rules. No equipment owner in California will be
selling compliant engines on the used market unless they are going
out of business. Our industry must have access to the global market
of certified equipment, including Tier 1 and Tier 2 machines from
outside the state.

Finally, we remind the Board of the first rule of
construction—“Measure twice, cut once.” 

To that end, we request that Dr. Sawyer appoint a Construction
Industry Task Force to take the portable regulations out of the
Potemkin world and into the real world by:

•Accurately measuring the scope of the affected industries 
•Consolidate all regulations impacting the construction industry 
•Work with the agency to develop meaningful emission reductions to
benefit all Californians. 
 
We believe this taskforce should consist of Dr. Sawyer, Dr.
Sperling for his expertise in the world of power systems,
representatives of the major construction associations,
construction equipment manufacturers, CIAQC and representatives
from the environmental community. 

We hope our recommendations will meet with the Board’s approval so
that we can all move forward from these contentious proceedings to
an environment of understanding, cooperation and truly improved
air quality.

Bill Davis works with the American Concrete Pumping Association,
Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition, Engineering and
Utility Contractors Association, and the Southern California
Contractors Association to inform their members on issues
involving air quality regulations in California.