The Centre for Science and Environment accuses the Delhi government of trying to sabotage Supreme Court orders to move diesel buses to CNG to reduce the high levels of particulate pollution in Delhi which kills more than 10,000 people every year in Delhi. The Delhi government, influenced by the diesel lobby, is citing selective literature from USA to argue that moving to CNG is difficult.

NEW DELHI, July 18 – The Centre for Science and Environment, a Delhi-based NGO fighting for clean air in Delhi, today accused the Delhi government of working with the diesel lobby to sabotage the Supreme Court orders to move all diesel buses operating in the city to CNG by March 31, 2000. The move will greatly reduce particulate pollution in the city which has possibly the highest level of respirable particles (PM10) in the world. These tiny particles kill an estimated 10,000 people in the city every year – that is, one person every hour. CSE spokesperson, Anumita Roychowdhury, said that Delhi government officials are citing biased and selective documents from the US to argue that even that country is finding it difficult to move to CNG, which is totally incorrect according to documents from the US government. Rowchowdhury also said that the US documents being cited by the Delhi government are being supplied to it by pro-diesel automobile companies.

CSE is shocked by the splurge of press statements from the Delhi government that have started appearing in the media over the last one month claiming that CNG conversion will not work. It began with the statement by the Lt. Governor Vijai Kapoor last month, followed by Ramvir Singh Bidhuri, spokesperson, Delhi Pradesh Congress Committee, last week, and now, the transport minister Parvez Hashmi himself, on July 17, 2000.

Hashmi has cited a study on the status of alternative fuel use, including CNG, in the US bus fleet nationwide prepared by the General Accounting Office (GAO) to say that the country only has "a very small portion (5 per cent) of the transit bus fleet of 50,000" running on alternative fuels like CNG. But Hashmi failed to point out that as much as 20 per cent, that is, one out of every five new bus being ordered across the country will be powered by alternative fuels, mostly natural gas, and these buses include hybrid buses which run on batteries and CNG.

According to the latest data available from the International Natural Gas Vehicles Association, USA has a total of 87,500 natural gas vehicles – next only to Argentina, Italy and Russia – but has the highest number of CNG refueling stations, that is, 1,102 or about 40 per cent of the world’s total.

Hashmi has pointed out that the GAO report dwells on poor experience with CNG buses. But he does not say that the GAO report at the same time states that natural gas buses have a promising future and that natural gas buses make up the majority of alternative fuel buses now in operation in the US. According to an official publication of the US Department of
 Energy, the discussion material in the GAO report "is loosely based on informal conversations and interviews that the GAO had with a small industry group." The US government also points out that "much of the report dwells on poor fleet experiences with early generation equipment from the late 1980s and early 1990s, and the findings do not reflect current market conditions." The government argues that GAO has taken the ‘glass half empty’ approach instead of a ‘glass half full’ one presumably because of its industry bias. The government, quoting the GAO report itself, further says, "Half of all the transit agencies contacted by the GAO plan to continue buying alternative fuel buses; of those, all but one are buying 100 per cent alternative fuel buses ( that is, not ordering any diesel buses).

The US government is encouraging Interstate Clean Transportation Corridors (ICTC) so that trucks can move from one state to another using CNG. One such ICTC already connects several Clean Cities in the West, Salt Lake City, San Diego, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Francisco, Las Vegas and Reno. The latest move against diesel buses is the new regulation slapped by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, California mandating that if any public fleet operator of 15 or more vehicles wants to purchase new vehicle or replace old vehicles, he must do so with alternative fuel vehicles from July 1, 2000. The rules categorically state that alternative fuels do not include vehicles running on gasoline or diesel but include fuels like CNG, propane, methanol, electricity, and fuel cells. Even China is embracing CNG as a major transportation fuel and already has 6,000 vehicles running on this fuel.

Because of the recent developments in the US, the pro-diesel automobile industry there, like its counterpart in India, has been trying its best to spread disinformation about CNG. The study recently cited by Vijai Kapoor, Lieutenant Governer, in the Indian media prepared by the Harvard Centre for Risk Assessment has been funded by Navistar International, a leading trucking company in the United States. The study has no original findings of its own but is a highly biased literature survey which only quotes studies against CNG. Says Michael Walsh, a highly respected air pollution expert and former official of the US Environment Protection Agency, "What I find especially troubling and distasteful is the way the authors give the report the aura of impartiality and scholarship by associating it with the Harvard name. Any undergraduate who turned such a report in to his professor would surely get a very poor grade." "It is such biased and pro-industry US studies that the Delhi government officials are quoting to justify their inaction on the CNG front," says CSE’s Roychowdhury.

In fact, to counter what it calls ‘industry folklore’, the US Department of Energy issued a press release in April 2000 entitled ‘Natural Gas Buses: Separating Myth from Fact’. The release deals with every issue that is confusing Delhi’s decision-makers: cost, effect on global warming, safety, and nanoparticles or ultra-fine particles. On the question of cost, the release points out that while the capital cost of a diesel bus is lower than that of a CNG bus, the operating cost is lower for a CNG bus in USA. This is true for India as well. Whereas the fuel cost for diesel buses is around Rs. 4.01 per kilometre, for converted CNG buses around Rs. 3.64, and for new CNG buses Rs. 3.24. A National Institute for Public Finance and Policy study also concludes: "…..CNG retrofitment appears most-cost effective among the available options for Delhi…under certain assumptions about vehicle utilisation rates, etc., the cost of CNG kits in a 3-wheeler, taxi, car and bus can be recovered in 5.7, 6, 28 and 37.8 months." So CNG actually gives both profits and lowered pollution.

The release dismisses the argument that CNG buses emit more particulate matter or more ultra-fine particles than diesel buses, pointing out, "CNG buses consistently emit dramatically less particulate matter than diesel buses. The trace amount of particulate matter associated with CNG is attributed to crankcase lubricating oil consumption (which also occurs in diesel engines)." As regards the number of ultra-fine particles, it says, "CNG actually produces much fewer ultra-fine particles than diesel fuel." On the point that CNG buses cause more global warming, it says, "CNG buses have very similar greenhouse gas emissions as diesel buses despite higher methane emissions because natural gas has inherently lower carbon dioxide emissions compared to diesel."

What about safety and proneness to explosions? The US DOE argues, "There is no evidence that CNG buses pose any greater risk of fire or explosion than diesel buses." This makes common sense because both are highly inflammable material. It adds, "The technology for making CNG tanks is well-known and mature. CNG fuel tanks are much stronger and safer than diesel or gasoline fuel tanks in the event of a vehicle collision. The few instances of tank failures that have occurred with CNG were carefully studied, and the problems have been remedied."

Some of the politicians of the Delhi government seem to have been influenced by automobile companies which would rather continue to produce diesel buses than CNG buses, as per the Supreme Court’s orders, and hence all this confusion and disinformation campaign, said Rowchowdhury. The diesel lobby’s argument is that Delhi should go in for EURO II diesel buses – buses which were adopted in Europe in 1996 -- instead of CNG buses. Even if Delhi went in for EURO II buses it will still be left with buses which will be tens of times more polluting than a CNG bus in terms of particulates.

In fact, running all buses on CNG is merely the first big step in the fight against the city’s horrendous particulate pollution which can cut the current particulate pollution load by 25 per cent. On the other hand, if Delhi wants clean air, the current load has to be cut by at least 80-90 per cent even when future vehicles are accounted for. So the challenge for clean air policy-makers is quite daunting. It is time Delhi politicians began to respond honestly to the Supreme Court order, said Roychowdhury of CSE.

CSE is deeply concerned over the obstructionist stance of the Delhi government. Why, despite all the evidence on CNG worldwide, it is choosing to ignore it and is trying to give the impression that CNG has failed to take off anywhere else in the world? It is time to ask who is holding up CNG conversion in the city and why?