ALBANY, NY— Industry representatives and environmental officials agree to seek a solution to stop idling— but their paths part sharply when they debate whether fuel savings or emissions reduction should be the priority in pursuing that common goal.

Speaking here Monday at the National Idling Reduction Planning Conference, Robert Clarke, president of the Truck Manufacturers Assn. (TMA), listed fuel savings as the top reason why idling reduction is important. He placed emissions reduction as the last reason.

“I did this on purpose,” he said before a packed audience at the conference room, citing cleaner 2007 and 2010 engines on the horizon that have near-zero emissions. “I believe fuel savings and energy independence should be the principal reason [for idling reduction] but emissions have been the pressure.”

Philip Christman, vp- product development for International Truck and Engine Corp. concurred.

“The argument for vehicle emissions is reduced,” Christman said. “The focus has to be on fuel savings.”

Pointed reactions from the members of audience who questioned the significance of emissions reduction as a reason to stop idling drew a response from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

“Let me point out that no one knows how 2007 and 2010 engines will perform in extended idling,” said Paul Bubbosh, EPA representative, pointing out that there has been little testing on idling “clean” engines and that emissions of improperly maintained engines remain a gray area.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection representative Peg Hanna, also stressed air quality as a priority in idling reduction.

“It’s [’07 and 2010 models] not a zero emissions vehicle,” Hanna said, emphasizing that in many cases, idling is an “unnecessary” detriment to health and safety.

“I question the statement that idling would increase wear-and-tear,” said Ken Adams of Jevic Transportation, a NJ-based LTL carrier. “We don’t keep our engines long enough. The engine technology today is so sophisticated that we don’t look at idling as a detriment to that unit.”