Return to TFB Main Page
Return to Texas Agriculture Archive

March 16, 2001

AFBF calls for EPA
to modify diesel rules

By Lana Robinson
Field Editor

Citing fears that the rule in its current form will likely result in a shortage of highway diesel fuel, the American Farm Bureau Federation and 20 other organizations are calling for modification of an EPA rule requiring a 97 percent reduction in highway diesel fuel sulfur levels by June, 2006.

In a recent letter to new EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman, the groups asked for a review of the final EPA rule, stating:

"Such a shortage would have a serious negative impact on the economy, because diesel is the nation's premier commercial fuel.

"Most American goods are shipped by diesel trucks, which means that any supply shortage and resulting cost impacts will immediately be felt throughout the national economy. A reliable supply of diesel fuel and engines is critical to the operations of farmers, truckers, bus operators, food distributors, small businesses, and other users."

Ned Meister, Texas Farm Bureau Commodity and Regulatory Activities director, shares the concern that the ruling may create a shortage of acceptable diesel fuel.

"I'm not sure we have the capacity to produce enough desulfured diesel within that time frame. There could be a price problem, or ag could be left out," Meister suggested.

Additionally, the TFB regulatory specialist worries that farmers may also experience mechanical problems with the new formulation.

"We already know that there are lubricity values to sulfur and diesel. Our systems, especially on older equipment, are not designed for dry diesel. There's going to have to be some very good additives available at a reasonable price and/or reasonably-priced retrofits from equipment manufacturers. Otherwise, farmers are going to have to buy new equipment, which is next to impossible at today's commodity prices," he added.

Most worrisome to Meister are the costs that could be associated with Clean Air Act compliance.

"In its recent ruling, the Supreme Court said EPA did have the authority to promulgate rules and did not have to take into consideration the cost—that the ozone factor, which relates back to the sulphur and diesel, has to be dealt with effectively," he said. "The systems best equipped to do that may very well be the most costly technologies. It may require the spending of mega dollars to achieve what the rule requires."

In their letter, the AFBF and others also urged the administration to adopt a more reasonable and balanced approach in this rule-making—an approach that would not compromise the environmental gains of the final rule, but would avert the rule's real potential for supply shortfalls.