Filed under: Legislation and Policy, Green Daily
Carmakers' lawsuit thrown out, judge rules California can regulate tailpipe emissions
Big legal news out of California today. A federal judge has just ruled that the State of California does have the right to regulate vehicles' greenhouse gas emissions. This decision goes against the automakers' wishes. They prefer that the federal government set national standards. Naturally, it is easier for them to build a car that can meet national standards and then be sold anywhere in the U.S.Here's AP writer Samantha Young:
[The automakers] argued that a federal energy law passed in 1975 gives the U.S. Department of Transportation sole jurisdiction over fuel economy. But [Judge] Ishii rejected that claim, saying Congress gave California and the EPA the authority to regulate vehicle emissions, even if those rules are more strict than those imposed by the federal government.
If this ruling stands, and California get a waiver from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to enforce the state's emissions standards, then the automakers might have to design and build a variety of cars and powerplants to meet each state's standards. In California, the AP reminds us, those standards were set in 2004 and call for a roughly 30 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2016. The EPA has said it will decide before the end of the year if that waiver will be approved.
I wonder if U.S. District Court Judge Anthony Ishii will now become a bit of a hero to some in the environmental movement, as it was his decision that California Attorney General Jerry Brown is calling "a major victory and a giant step forward for California." Brown is also involved in the suit that is asking the federal government to limit emissions on oceangoing ships. More news to come on this, without a doubt.
Related:
- California and environmental groups to sue EPA over emissions rules
- Judge dismisses California greenhouse nuisance lawsuit
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
zaedrus 4:26PM (12/12/2007)
California always seems to set the pace. Here in the MidWest we see their efforts and fads 10 to 15 years later. Maybe if we just conceded in the first place... leg warmers and high bangs would have passed on earlier. And we would be driving better (environmentally) performing cars.
This is 17 years after the California Air Resources Board passed the ZEV mandate. Hopefully lessons were learned the first go around to make this one more positive and productive.
Reply
Dad 4:32PM (12/12/2007)
"The automakers"
Which automakers are they referring to?
Reply
bioburner 4:57PM (12/12/2007)
If they built the car to meet the more stringent California specs then they could sell those cars anywhere. I guess its cheaper to hire laywers and file law suits than to do the right thing.
Reply
Erik 6:23PM (12/12/2007)
Of course it is cheaper to hire a lawyer than to change an entire lineup of cars. It's a business whose goal is to maximize profit. I don't think that people are looking at this the right way. Automakers are not going to make specific cars for each state, that would be far too costly. The beauty of this ruling is that automakers will comply with the most stringent standards of a single state, and sell that car everywhere.
Reply
Joseph 6:30PM (12/12/2007)
I wonder what next California is going to do.
Hopefully after the ZEV mandate, they'll set progressive, yet realistic, standards.
Reply
Joseph 6:30PM (12/12/2007)
"then the automakers might have to design and build a variety of cars and powerplants to meet each state's standards"
I seriosuly doubt that any state is going to make mpg so much higher than whatever the national CAFE is, that they'll have to design cars just for that state. They'll probably retool the car electronics for efficiency, rather than performance, and market cars more than SUVs so that way their vehicles are all slightly more fuel-efficient and they sell more cars than trucks/SUVs.
No car company would ever even design an entire car just for a particular state, or group of states. It's more likely they'd stop offering the V6 or V8 version of the car in that state.
Reply
susan.kraemer 8:46PM (12/12/2007)
If you want the progressive legislation that California has, now is the time to tell your Senator that.
The Energy Bill, HR6, is now literally just one Republican short of a cloture vote tomorrow to bring it to the floor and vote on.
*Drastic reduction or elimination of subsidies for oil companies beloved by free-market Republicans.
*They will be replaced with expanded, long-lasting solar subsidies. These will be long-lasting-- 8 years for commercial, 6 for residential. (This is crucial.. the number one problem with our current policies is that they are short-term, which discourages investment because businesses can't plan for the long-term.) They will be 30%, and the current $2k to $4k cap will be gone.
*Extends for two years existing subsidies for wind, biomass, geothermal, small irrigation hydro,landfill gas, trash combustion facilities. Adds subsidies for tidal.
*Subsidies for energy efficiency (for homes, businesses, appliances)
*Tax credits of $3000 to $5000 for plugin hybrids, credits for converting hybrids to plug-in hybrids. Small subsidies for bicycle commuting. Who to call? read here:
2007 Energy Bill: We Need ONE VOTE by Tomorrow
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/12/13130/878/900/421157
Reply
John Smith 9:21PM (12/12/2007)
"I wonder if U.S. District Court Judge Anthony Ishii will now become a bit of a hero to some in the environmental movement...."
========================
Since when are judges out to become "heroes"?
Gosh, we have to take this country back from these mutant versions of Americans lest they justify a homegrown copy of the Soviet Union (which they still admire and believe wasn't given a "proper chance") through their creative (read: personal, crusading, sacreligious and narcissistic) "reading" of our Constitution.
It's like it doesn't mean anything at all.
These are the people who deny that the plain English that says we can own guns doesn't mean what it says, but that something that is never mentioned at all in the Constitution (or any of the founding documents for that matter) is an inalienable right (abortion).
Unbelievable.
No wonder, historically, these people seem to be afraid of elections (leftists).
Reply
John 9:24PM (12/12/2007)
5. I wonder what next California is going to do.
Hopefully after the ZEV mandate, they'll set progressive, yet realistic, standards.
Posted at 6:30PM on Dec 12th 2007 by Joseph
===============================================
Realistic?
Liberals?
Indeed...
Look at the idiotic energy bill they wanted to pass.
And these are the "moderate" ones.
Reply
John Smith 9:26PM (12/12/2007)
3. If they built the car to meet the more stringent California specs then they could sell those cars anywhere. I guess its cheaper to hire laywers and file law suits than to do the right thing.
Posted at 4:57PM on Dec 12th 2007 by bioburner
=================================================
At what price, fool?
Then again, I wouldn't expect a non-monetarist to know anything about supply and demand.
Have you ever read an economics book in your life?
Even then, did you understand it?
Reply
John 9:28PM (12/12/2007)
1. California always seems to set the pace. Here in the MidWest we see their efforts and fads 10 to 15 years later. Maybe if we just conceded in the first place... leg warmers and high bangs would have passed on earlier. And we would be driving better (environmentally) performing cars.
This is 17 years after the California Air Resources Board passed the ZEV mandate. Hopefully lessons were learned the first go around to make this one more positive and productive.
Posted at 4:26PM on Dec 12th 2007 by zaedrus
==========================================
I'll tell you one way the "Midwest" copies California: People are leaving.
Reply
GreyFlcn 11:08PM (12/12/2007)
==Have you ever read an economics book in your life?==
Have you?
http://greyfalcon.net/smith.png
Reply
GreyFlcn 11:24PM (12/12/2007)
==Gosh, we have to take this country back from these mutant versions of Americans lest they justify a homegrown copy of the Soviet Union==
Yeah, we call them Republicans.
1. Concentration of power in the executive branch
2. Social repression
3. Torture
4. Widespread blocking of information from the public.
5. Removal of Habeas Corpus
6. Spying on the public
7. Unprovoked Warfare
_
As for spending tax dollars, you might want to get a little bit of perspective first.
http://greyfalcon.net/doonsbury.png
http://greyfalcon.net/iraqvsenergy.png
http://greyfalcon.net/energyresearch.png
Reply
Mike Taylor 11:26PM (12/12/2007)
For those of you who say no car company would ever design and build a car for a particular state, do you not remember when some vehicles were sold in every other state but CA? CA set stricter emission rules so special hardware was added for CA and not other states. If CA's rules are allowed to take effect without any moderation, I fully expect the same thing to happen again for at least a few years.
The problem is this time, it's not just emissions. CO2 limits fuel economy too. That's not just adding things like a heated oxygen sensor, or a modified catalytic converter. They will have to change their product mix they sell in CA. For those niche market vehicles, this may well mean they are discontinued nationwide, if CA was a sizable proportion of their total sales.
I really don't think most of the public understands what is coming. They just expect they will get something for nothing. Get ready for the backlash once they do understand.
Reply
Guenther 11:43PM (12/12/2007)
I guess it sucks to live in a CARB state. Automakers should take a stand and collectively stop selling anything in Cali that won't meet future requirements. When the fine people of the PRC are left with nothing but a few shoe boxes, they might throw out those lunatics that make policy out there.
Reply
GreyFlcn 12:08AM (12/13/2007)
1. California is a huge portion of the American car market, and 12-16 other states automatically adopt their car standards.
2. American car manufacturers have been slacking for 30 long years on making more fuel efficient cars.
Thats what you call a "Market Failure"
http://greyfalcon.net/cafe.png
Reply
Wildgoosechase 1:39AM (12/13/2007)
The real danger is that CA's CO2 regulations will mandate that the majority ofo vehicles sold (sold not produced) in CA will be small and very small cars. Aside from safety issues, this forces US automakers to compete at a price point that they are uncompetive in. Virtually all domestic auto production will cease as the floodgate of cars from China and India opens.
Reply
GreyFlcn 5:42AM (12/13/2007)
1. The reason the US Automakers are losing market share is because we keep making cars based on antiquated technology which brakes down. The Japanese offer more reliable cars that get better mileage, and we use those. Which isn't to say that we can't make those, if anything Toyota does too. The real issue is that the focus has primarily been on making gigantic cars, and selling those at a premium price. Thats why Detroit fights so hard to keep cars are trucks classed separately. They like easy money. Even if they are killing off the US car market in the long run.
2. What makes you think that car size is the only issue related to car safety? A smaller car can be much safer than a bigger car. Some of the worst crash test ratings are on large cars. Some of the best crash test ratings are on smaller cars. For instance the Impreza or the New VW Bug. While it can be a factor, it is not the only factor, or even the most important. And also one might also consider that larger cars are statistically more likely to get INTO accidents. Factor that into safety.
http://greyfalcon.net/nas2
http://greyfalcon.net/nas3
http://greyfalcon.net/nas4
3. Besides which even if you refuse to look at the data, perhaps you can admit that fuel economy doesn't have to mean smaller cars. If anything a diesel engine both lowers the cost of ownership, and lowers the fuel consumption. And California will begin to sell new diesel cars this Spring 2008.
Reply
Stéphane Dumas 7:56AM (12/13/2007)
"The reason the US Automakers are losing market share is because we keep making cars based on antiquated technology which brakes down. The Japanese offer more reliable cars that get better mileage, and we use those. Which isn't to say that we can't make those, if anything Toyota does too. The real issue is that the focus has primarily been on making gigantic cars, and selling those at a premium price. Thats why Detroit fights so hard to keep cars are trucks classed separately. They like easy money. Even if they are killing off the US car market in the long run."
Strange irony now is the Accord and Maxima for example are gotten bigger, longer, wider and heavier http://www.truedelta.com/blog/?p=165 and then Toyota introduced bigger Tundra and Sequoia
Reply
Jared 9:04AM (12/13/2007)
The members of CARB and Anthony Ishii need to be "renditioned" to Gitmo.
It is COMPLETELY idiotic that we have two different emissions standards and that incompetent idiots in CA are setting one of them.
Reply