Filed under: Government/Legal, Green, Daimler, GM
Court removes wind from automakers' sales in Vermont emissions fight
General Motors and the former DaimlerChrysler have been handed a disappointment in a Boston district court. At issue was Vermont's adoption of California's carbon dioxide standard, which requires cars and light trucks to reduce their emissions of the greenhouse gas by 30 percent. GM and DCX brought suit against the state of Vermont, claiming that Federal law was being usurped by states demanding their own emissions standards. Furthermore, the automakers say they couldn't meet the standard, and will have to pull out of Vermont as a result. Judge William Sessions didn't buy the argument of GM and DaimlerChrysler, and instead upheld the Vermont law. While the standards are tighter than the Federal regulations, Sessions was not convinced that they pre-empt the nationwide requirements. It does appear like a thorny States Rights question, and if more states than the current dozen or so adopt California emissions guidelines, it will continue to cause consternation. It does make the federal regs look useless when states are passing requirements that are more rigorous. It also creates extra cost for automakers, as they've either got to make all of their cars compliant, or sell "Federal" and "California" versions of the same car. The decision will be appealed by the automakers, and we expect this issue to have legs – this is not the last we'll hear of this debate.
[Source: Automotive News – sub req.]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
cowboy bob 8:44AM (9/13/2007)
If only manufacturers and government would spend the money and effort to maximize the development of battery technology instead of spending time and money fighting about current engine development! Think how wonderfull it would be to have clean, zero pollution autos and trucks that could run 400/500 miles on batteries with an on-board recharging system that could be either replentished by a small clean burn bio-diesel or a plug-in with a one/two hour re-charge. Wind farms, hydro, and solar plants would almost eliminate pollution and CO2 emissions. Oil hydrocarbon needs would almost vanish. No more diaper heads pounding the Koran and using petro-dollars to arm terrorists. I hope the world won't miss humanity when we finally extinguish ourselves and half, (or more) of the rest the planet. Earth has about 5 billion years left, and could do it nicely without us.
Reply
The Other Bob 11:04AM (9/13/2007)
While I am not sure I appreciate the "diaper heads" comment, the rest of your statement is right on:
"If only manufacturers and government would spend the money and effort to maximize the development of battery technology instead of spending time and money fighting about current engine development! Think how wonderfull it would be to have clean, zero pollution autos and trucks that could run 400/500 miles on batteries with an on-board recharging system that could be either replentished by a small clean burn bio-diesel or a plug-in with a one/two hour re-charge. Wind farms, hydro, and solar plants would almost eliminate pollution and CO2 emissions. Oil hydrocarbon needs would almost vanish."
I really fear these efforts and the CAFE proposal will take engineers away from developing cars like the Volt and force makers to immediately work on stop gap measures on existing engine technology.
If these enviornomental efforts succeed and industry is damaged, it will set back effective environmental efforts for decades.
Andrew 9:49AM (9/13/2007)
batteries add MASSIVE amounts of weight and have a relatively short lifespan before recharging.
and from where is all this extra electricity going to come? most electricity in the US is generated by *COAL*.
"Wind farms, hydro, and solar plants"
all require large amounts of land (wind/solar) and hydro is limited by where you can dam. there are only so many rivers in the US.
wind farms have been protested by animal groups because birds often fly through the mills, killing themselves. wind farms are also fairly loud, IIRC.
nuclear energy would be a fantastic alternative if it weren't for the all-too-prevalent NIMBYism and fear that we'll all somehow die, despite the fact that nuclear reactors will *never* behave like a bomb (
rem83 10:08AM (9/13/2007)
Regarding wind farms and bird mortality rates: http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html
Just because they're perceived as dangerous doesn't mean they actually are. Also, lots of things are loud - especially highways and airports. People really just need to get used to wind turbines.
Barney 12:59AM (9/14/2007)
rem83. Not everyone lives next to highways or airports. People living in rural areas are most effected by the noise. Creating the noise after a tranquil exsistance, is not something to get use to. Area not populated are the only places these wind farms can exist. Is there any place in the USA,this is possible? Would you be happy to live next to one?
TigerMil 9:02AM (9/13/2007)
Look, it's all just political posturing.
If the Vermont voters don't like it, let them vote out the idiots who pass the law.
And if they do like the law...let the Vermonters eat cake when they can't get the services and vehicles at the prices they can afford. Or blame Canada.
Reply
Icon149 9:34AM (9/13/2007)
Only problem is the cost will end up being spread accross the entire model range, The auto's will have to develope to the most stringent regulations. so while i like the idea, and i appreciate the effort, i am all for greener cars and less pollution. I still want to be able to afford a nice car. These just push the cost of automobiles through the roof.
John Cressy 7:12PM (9/13/2007)
I totaly agree. Vermont has been gaining population over the years and the number of people now out number cows. The people have brought to Vermont from places like New York and Connecticut what they went there to escape. Moonbatism! The total unrealistic view that if it ain't Green it ain't good for ya! The best thing for GM and Chrysler to do would be to close those 10 or 12 dealerships they have up there and let them drive segways in the snow. Try hauling all that Ben & Jerry's ice cream and Cabot Cheese out of Vermont without trucks.
DCragTop 9:05AM (9/13/2007)
WWJD?
Reply
Mike Botros 9:21AM (9/13/2007)
I'm confused. If they're adopting CA's emission laws, and they're already selling in CA. Why can't they just bring those same vehicles to Vermont?
Reply
Justin 9:35AM (9/13/2007)
Agreed 100%
Mike 10:22AM (9/13/2007)
Making vehicles that meet CA emissions costs more...
I live in RI and we have CA emissions...I wouldn't change that to get a cheaper truck that is for sure...
SteveinVT 12:28PM (9/13/2007)
Vermont was sued because we are a tiny state and can't afford an army of lawyers like California. Vermont has had CA emissions for years and the GHG requirements merely follow CA's lead. This is a smart strategy for a small state in the absence of federal leadership, which has been lacking.
I am a car freak, but even I realize there is a need to deal with global warming. If the Feds won't, the states will!!
John Cressy 7:21PM (9/13/2007)
They already mentioned that about 12 states have California emissions. All the New England states already have California emissions installed in the cars. They are talking about tougher standards than those. I can name 8 states: California,Massachusetts,Connecticut,New Hampshire,Rhode Island,Maine, Vermont, New York. The others are probably New Jersey and the states that border California. Maybe Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Nevada.
jg3 9:33AM (9/13/2007)
Precedent, I'd guess. If Vermont, a place they probably thought might be an easier win (bad assumption there, I'd think), were to fall, there'd be hope that they could make other states' regs fall, too.
Reply
John Ard 9:37AM (9/13/2007)
With another state using California's standards the automakers have to produce more of the higher-cost "California" versions. I agree with TigerMil; the people of Vermont should be able to pass whatever emmissions regs they want and let the market sort it out. If that means some brands pull out of that state then so be it. I personally would like the emmissions laws to be decided only at the state level. Us Alabamians could then buy diesels no problem while the "Californian" states could have their super-clean vehicles.
Reply
I be a collige gragiate 9:38AM (9/13/2007)
I agree. It costs 0$ in dev costs to get the cars to meet regs since they're already being built for the CA market. This is a good example of the states picking up the slack where the federal gov't failed. Way to go Vermont!
Reply
raz 9:46AM (9/13/2007)
Why fight what they KNOW will happen as soon as Bush leaves the office.
Entire nation will adopt California rules...........you know it will happen, so why spend millions at the time you need every last penny. PLUS once again tarnish your reputation. Yeah, Yeah Toyota is also suing Vermont, but Toyota one way or another finds a way to make public see (fools public if it helps you) its brands as super clean. GM and others are not able to do this..................so they will once again will be percieved as anti environment.....which they are.
Reply
Whydrive 9:57AM (9/13/2007)
Hopefully these other states that wanna be like California will also adopt California's high gas prices.
Reply
YouFaceTheTick 10:05AM (9/13/2007)
The people writing articles about CARB should look into how the federal government - especially the judicial branch views CARB. Essentially, the national rule has been and will continue to be: states can choose to follow CARB or the federal guidelines. Why? CARB arrived on the scene way before the US Government took any action on air quality. CARB essentially was grandfathered into the system. Originally the government had a hard time getting any states to follow air quality controls.
Reply