Canada deal stirs state debate on emissions

As automakers fight an effort by lawmakers in Olympia to cut greenhouse-gas emissions from cars, the industry last week signed a pact with the Canadian government to reduce those same gases.

The deal has become a factor in the debate in Washington's Legislature, where the Senate is expected to take a decisive vote this week on a bill forcing the auto industry to sell cleaner, more fuel-efficient cars.

Proponents of the legislation say the Canadian agreement debunks industry claims that the Washington legislation would be too burdensome and would rely on unproven technology. They hope it could sway senators in what is shaping up to be a close vote.

"It says to me, and I think the entire community, that when the automakers want to get serious about reducing the output of carbon dioxide they can do it," said Sen. Phil Rockefeller, a Bainbridge Island Democrat who is lead sponsor of the bill in the Senate.

But organizations representing auto dealers and manufacturers counter that the two deals aren't comparable. The Canadian agreement is less far-reaching than the Washington legislation, modeled on California regulations, and it tackles the issue nationwide, rather than state by state.

"The situation in California and Canada is totally dissimilar. In California you have one state trying to undermine federal law," said Eron Shosteck, spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

In Canada, automakers agreed to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions from cars and light trucks by 5.3 million metric tons in 2010, compared with the 90.5 million tons expected that year without the deal.

Achieving that goal will require automakers to produce more fuel-efficient cars that emit fewer gases such as carbon dioxide, which is linked to climate change.

Some have predicted it will take a 20 percent to 25 percent improvement in average gas mileage for new cars to meet the new requirements. But Tony Taylor, director of transportation energy use for Canada's Office of Energy Efficiency, said it won't be that steep, because the average Canadian car already beats government efficiency requirements.

The Washington bill, modeled on California regulations, would require bigger cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions — an average 30 percent reduction for new cars sold in 2016 compared with cars sold in 2002.

Unlike the Canadian deal, it also would directly target the performance of cars, rather then set an overall goal for emissions reductions. In Canada, automakers could benefit from any government regulations that cut car emissions, such as taxes rewarding people who leave their cars at home.

Under the California rules, each automaker has to ensure its car sales meet an average emission level each year regardless of the overall level of greenhouse gases.

Automakers have sued to block the California regulations, arguing they amount to a de facto gas-mileage standard that only the federal government is allowed to set.

Still, promoters of the Washington bill say the deal auto makers agreed to in Canada has a lot in common with the one they are fighting in Washington and California. In each case, automakers will have to sell more-efficient cars to cut greenhouse gases.

"Washingtonians have to go to Canada to get cheaper prescription drugs already. Now we're going to have to go to Canada to get cars that use less gas?" asked Lisa Andrews, spokeswoman for Clean Cars for Washington, a coalition promoting the restrictions.

Auto-industry representatives, however, say that even if they are forced to sell more-efficient cars in Washington, doing so would come with a price. They have warned Washington lawmakers it could add $3,000 to the cost of a car and could hurt their ability to offer popular, big SUVs and trucks, which burn more gas.

"Our message remains the same [following the Canadian deal]," said Brian Imai, legal and policy analyst for the Washington State Auto Dealers Association.

California officials have disputed the industry warnings, saying the rules would raise the cost of a vehicle roughly $1,000, which would be more than offset by gas savings.

Warren Cornwall: 206-464-2311 or wcornwall@seattletimes.com