U.S. Chamber, National Auto Dealers Assn. Seek Overturn of Californa GHG Waiver
By John O'Dell September 10, 2009Suit Filed Despite Industry Losses in Previous Attempts to Block State's CO2 Rules
By John O'Dell, Senior Editor
We had thought, with the decision by the feds to formulate a national greenhouse gas emissions policy, that all the fuss over California's effort to establish statewide greenhouse gas reduction standards for passenger vehicles would go away.
Boy, are we naive.
The National Auto Dealers Assn. and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce today filed a federal appeal seeking a review of the Environmental Protection Agency's July decision to allow California to proceed with implementing its automotive tailpipe regulations
The appeal, filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, appears to be an effort set the stage for an attempt to block a national standard for greenhouse gas emissions expected to be issued in draft form as early as next week.
It drew immediate and sometimes harsh reaction from environmental groups and California's head air quality regulator.
Sierra Club attorney David Bookbinder called the filing a "silly, meaningless, of little consequence" effort that shows the Chamber as an institution "that takes the most reactionary position possible."
The "cream of American business," he said, referring to the U.S. chamber, "should be smarter than this."
Mary Nichols, chairman of the California Air Resources Board, which is charged with writing the state's GHG rules, said in a statement that the board is "very disappointed that these parties continue to pursue an outdated course of action designed to obstruct and oppose efforts to move us toward a cleaner environment and greater energy security, and we are confident that EPA will prevail in court.
Chamber and NADA spokesmen couldn't be reached for comment and the organizations had not posted anything relating to the appeal on their Websites this evening.
The anticipated draft national GHG standards for motor vehicle emissions are expected to largely mirror the 2016 standards California had adopted before being blocked by the Bush administration EPA, which last year denied the state a waiver needed to begin implementing the regulations.
It was that denial that the Obama EPA reversed in July.
California's greenhouse gas rules - which have been adopted by 13 other states and the District of Columbia - require cars and trucks sold in those states in coming years to have much lower emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases than they do now.
The quickest way to reduce such emissions is to reduce the amount of gasoline or diesel burned per mile traveled - or to eliminate use of petroleum and other carbon-based fuels altogether.
That led automakers and car dealers to claim that the rules were in fact an attempt to impose a multi-state fuel efficiency standard that was different than the federal standard, a situation they claimed, that would wreak economic havoc in the industry.
Indeed, the California rules would require a significant hike in average fuel economy of new vehicles sold in the state - to about 35 miles per gallon in 2016 and, under new rules now being promulgated, to about 42 mpg by 2020.
Several efforts to sue in federal court to stop imposition of the California rules - which were adopted by other states under a federal law that permits such action - were rejected before the Bush EPA acted.
The Obama EPA, however, is now expected to call for a nationwide 35.5 mpg fuel economy average by 2016 as part of an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
It appears that the suit by the dealer and business groups is aimed at attempting to block California's next step, now underway, to - implement rules for tailpipe GHG emissions for cars sold in the state from 2016 through 2020.
Motions in the new suit are due next month.
The states that have said they want to follow California's approach are Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.
LEAVE A COMMENT
Click here to comment on this entry.I was curious about the legal grounds for such a lawsuit, and I found this on a quick google search.
"This week's lawsuit did not spell out the business groups' reasons for challenging the EPA waiver. But the Chamber of Commerce has argued in the past that California can set its own rules only for air-pollution problems that are unique to the state, and that greenhouse gases and global warming affect all states." SFGate.com
This means the courts need to decide whether California is acting beyond its authority. My personal opinion: no. But the courts don't always side with my opinion. (A shame, really).
You know, John, this is kind of sad, given the environmentalist fervor that the country is experiencing right now. But you and Scott have fifteen articles on the first page of the Green Car Advisor. And yet there are only 4 comments (5 if you count this one) on the entire page.
Well, you can lead em to water but.....We'd both welcome lots more comment, criticism, conversation, but we apparently don't play to a particularly chatty audience - yet. (Now its 6!)
I'd wager it's partly that being efficient isn't nearly as sexy as being fast. But then, the two don't have to be mutually exclusive (Tesla). Maybe Green Car Advisor attracts a more reserved, intellectual crowd that doesn't feel compelled to comment on every story.
I'll go with that (intellectual, more reserved)! But we certainly invite all out there to comment and question away, and promise we'll be better at responding when appropriate. Green cars may not be as exciting as fast ones (except when the two overlap) but they certainly are a heck of a lot more relevant - and important.
Not to sound like I'm changing my opinion... but I do like the smaller "classroom size" on this blog, since there's more chance for one-on-one interaction (like this!). Contrast that with the Long Term blog, where posts can have scores of comments, and meaningful discussions have a tendency of getting lost.
ADD A COMMENT