EPA Issues Weak Rule on Snowmobile Emissions After Earful from Graham

A final EPA rule to cut emissions from snowmobiles and other off-road vehicles is weaker than the agency’s original proposal, which met resistance from the vice president’s office and John Graham, administrator of OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), who sided with the snowmobile industry.Despite their harmful effects, snowmobile emissions have never been regulated under the Clean Air Act. A typical 2-stroke snowmobile engine emits as much harmful pollution in seven hours as a car driven for 100,000 miles, according to Environmental Defense [1]; snowmobiles annually discharge about 530,000 tons of carbon monoxide and 200,000 tons of hydrocarbons. This pollution is especially concentrated in national parks, where tens of thousands snowmobile every year, endangering park employees, impairing visibility, and harming the natural habitat.

The new rule -- signed by EPA Administrator Christie Todd Whitman on Sept. 13, as required under a court order -- mandates at least a 50 percent reduction in hydrocarbon emissions by 2010 and a 30 percent reduction in carbon monoxide, as opposed to the 50 percent reduction called for in the agency's original proposed rule [2], which Graham questioned in a “post-review letter.” [3]

Environmental Defense contends that even EPA's original proposal would have been too weak, pointing out that the four major snowmobile manufacturers already produce 4-stroke engines that can achieve much higher emissions reductions, and a new 2-stroke engine developed by Colorado State University can reduce hydrocarbon emissions by 88 percent and carbon monoxide by 99 percent.

Nonetheless, the manufacturers staunchly opposed even a 50 percent reduction in carbon monoxide emissions, pressing their case in a meeting on Sept. 6, 2001 [4], with Graham that was attended by a representative of Vice President Cheney -- a snowmobile enthusiast who owns a home in Jackson, Wyo., just south of Yellowstone National Park, where controversy over the rule has swirled. According to a feature story in the Washington Post’s Weekend section on Aug. 18, briefing notes from an unnamed official indicated, “VP’s office has an interest in [the snowmobile] portion of the rule, and a few concerns.”

Days later, Graham issued his post review letter, asking EPA to perform a more comprehensive cost-benefit analysis to show “net benefits” through greater quantification and monetization of benefits. Mirroring concerns expressed by the manufacturers, Graham also faulted EPA’s cost estimates, arguing, among other things, that the agency should evaluate whether the potential higher costs of cleaner snowmobiles would drive down consumer demand.

The Clean Air Act directs that standards be based on the best available technology; human health and the environment are the overriding concerns, not costs. Yet under Graham’s leadership, such statutory considerations have been largely thrown out the window in favor of decision-making based on monetized cost-benefit analysis, which turns the logic underlying the Clean Air Act on its head. Costs are not merely given the same level of concern as benefits; they are given more concern, because of the biases and limitations built into such analysis [5] (i.e., many benefits are difficult to put in dollars and cents). Not surprisingly, EPA’s original weak proposed rule became even weaker after input from Graham.