California files suit against EPA to overturn greenhouse gas waiver decision
Just two weeks after the EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson turned down California's request for a waiver allowing the state to regulate greenhouse gases, things are moving to court. California has followed trough on their promise to take the EPA to court by filing suit in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The grounds for the suit is that the EPA failed to adequately explain the reasons for denying the waiver. If California's regulations are allowed to go ahead it would effectively mandate a fleet fuel economy average of 44 mpg by 2020, significantly more than the 35mpg required by the recently passed federal energy bill. Fifteen other states have also adopted or are in the process of taking on California's environmental regulations. The Bush administration and the automakers will obviously be fighting this lawsuit vigorously because, after all, the last thing anyone in this administration wants to do is explain their actions.
[Source: Detroit News]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Throwback 11:50AM (1/03/2008)
This is the same state that sued the car companies for selling a legal product in the state. I am all for states rights but there are some things that have to be done at a federal level. Does California want to secede from the union? It seems so.
Reply
mrbell321 12:42PM (1/03/2008)
Why does it have to be done a federal level? They have the population, who seems to be largely in favor of these rules, to put a large dent in automobile sales if the companies don't keep up. I have my doubts that the companies can meet such strict standards w/o some major breakthroughs. If California wants to regulate ICE vehicles out of their state, that is fantastic. And more power to them. Even being an automotive enthusiast, it would make me want to move there more.
Reply
dr61 12:48PM (1/03/2008)
15 other states are joining California. California has a right to do this under the Clean Air Act, if there is a scientific basis for it. The EPA staff recommended for California, and Bush's political appointee decided otherwise on orders from Bush. California will WIN this one in court.
Reply
Tim 2:51PM (1/03/2008)
Some people on this blog need a better understanding the Constitution:
Constitution Lectures 1: The Non-Consent of the Governed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hzMHLK93TA
Constitution Lectures 2: Interpreting the Constitution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=un0wMkxq2ak
Constitution Lectures 3: The Powers of Government
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPkUGYDAfGc
Constitution Lecture 4: Democracy or Republic?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C_YBhY11yA
Reply
Rojo 2:48PM (1/03/2008)
Here's the section of the Clean Air Act you should all get familiar with:
http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/caa209.txt
Sec. 209. (a) No State or any political subdivision thereof shall adopt or attempt to enforce any standard relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines subject to this part. No State shall require certification, inspection, or any other approval relating to the control of emissions from any new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine as condition precedent to the initial retail sale, titling (if any), or registration of such motor vehicle, motor vehicle
engine, or equipment.
(b)(1) The Administrator shall, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, waive application of this section to any State which has adopted standards (other than crankcase emission
standards) for the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines prior to March 30, 1966, if the State determines that the State standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as
applicable Federal standards. No such waiver shall be granted if the Administrator finds that-
(A) the determination of the State is arbitrary and capricious,
(B) such State does not need such State standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, or
(C) such State standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 202(a) of this part.
Now then... hopefully all that terrible formatting shows up as readable once I add the comment.
I think C is pretty inconsequential here, for the moment, and the rest of the paragraphs following this excerpt go on to talk about the determination of being 'at least as good as Federal guidelines' and non-motor vehicles.
So, draw your attention first to subsection (A). California simply wants a higher standard than what the new bill introduced. Ergo Johnson had the right to deny the waiver because it would be counter-productive for the manufacturers and (a very real underlying intent) a slap in the face to the House, Congress, the President AND the EPA. That fits the definition of arbitrary and capricious quite nicely.
So, they say fine, it's not arbitrary, it's because OMG WE'RE DESTROYING THE PLANET, GLOBAL WARMING!!!1!
Now for Subsection (B) They do not need those standards for such a compelling and extraordinary condition; Meaning now (by the CAA's wording) that they must prove that emissions in their state are causing global warming and that their higher MPG standards will prevent such an occurrence *in* California. However, it will probably require the supreme court to determine 1) what their real argument is for requiring the higher standard, and 2) the validity of their data to back up that argument.
But, the State of California has many other ways in which they can influence much higher MPG and emissions standards; they're just in the business of fiscally punishing people they don't like rather than rewarding those they do.
A couple thoughts off the top of my head are lower speed limits and state sales tax breaks to those who purchase cars with at least a certain MPG rating.
Honestly, it looks to me that Cali lawmakers have been politically spoiled in terms of waivers for emissions standards and now they're throwing a tantrum. It's what they do best, really.
Reply
psece 3:16PM (1/03/2008)
California can pass its own emissions control. All they have to do is stop accepting grants from the Federal government. Once a state accepts grants, they accept the rules that go with it.
Reply
Jim 3:21PM (1/03/2008)
Remember you only get what you pay for, California wants their own rules, but we'll all have to pony up the extra money it will take to meet THEIR standards. All 16 states will have different standards......give me a break, this is not one of the "states rights".
Reply
Tim 5:11PM (1/03/2008)
Jim, see comment #5. It's pointed right at you!
Reply
Owain Ozymandias Buck 8:17AM (1/04/2008)
I'm generally in favor of the states having much say in how they do their own thing. Indeed, this probably should fall under the reserved for the states part of the constitution. They are probably justified in their suit.
BUT, a common emissions standard for the nation as a whole would work out better for everyone. The manufacturers would save a lot of money. Progressively higher standards phased in moderately can only benefit our air quality. Surely there's a common sense way to agree to approach this as a country and establish a unified emissions standard.
States rights are undeniable, but they aren't the best thing when you're being an ass.
Reply
Julius 11:54AM (1/04/2008)
Of course, California has a better way to influence CO2 production in its state, if it was really worried about it - that is, increase carbon taxes within the state.
It's an action that is already in place, requires no Federal approval, and can be highly effective in reducing consumption. As it stands, previous efforts at imroving mileage have been ineffective in reducing overall consumption, because of the ever-greater numbers of vehicle-miles driven.
Invest in better ways of moving people around (other than the automobile), and CO2 levels will fall.
Reply
Owain Ozymandias Buck 3:56PM (1/04/2008)
That is a good idea. Same emissions standards, but a fuel tax to encourage efficient choices.
Folks will say, "that won't make cars pollute less!" Yeah it will. they will drive less, and generally more fuel efficient vehicles have less carbon emissions as well as those that affect air quality.
Reply