Sorry CARB: EPA says states can't regulate their own emissions
If you found it slightly strange that automakers went from being ardently opposed to any new EPA legislation to 100-percent behind the new proposal, you're not alone. Now the picture appears clearer, as the EPA has deemed any new California Air Resources Board (CARB) legislation an unnecessary evil. The significance of the new ruling is so far-reaching that the OEM savings can be heard all across our great land. In short, it means that California and the 17 other states vying for independent CO2 regulations are completely helpless in forcing automakers to be held to a separate, higher standard. Of course, California is now threatening to sue the EPA, which will provide interesting headlines but likely no alternative outcome. While we will never know if automakers were tipped by the EPA of this eventuality, we can definitely say that every exec in the auto industry is today dancing the jig over this news. Besides, we've been keeping tabs on this situation for some time, so we knew it was a possibility. Having multiple regulations would set back R&D spending for years, as automakers would be chasing their own tails trying to comply with multiple regulations. With no separate standard for green states like California, automakers can now build one car for all 50 states, which will save billions every year. Let's hope that the saved cash will be funneled back into green tech research and development. And let's hope that lawmakers spend more time paving the way for plug-in spots for electric cars, more gas stations with E85, and a proper fuel cell infrastructure, and less time trying to beat on OEMs in an effort to look good for voters.
[Source: AutoblogGreen]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
CB 8:21AM (12/20/2007)
If California sues, they should lose. It's called the "reverse commerce clause" under constitutional law doctrine and it says that states do not have the authority to regulate interstate commerce. The courts have consistently struck down state regulations like this.
Reply
Fernando 9:58AM (12/20/2007)
They wouldn't be violating interstate commerce clauses if they required, by law, that all cars pass an emissions test one year after purchase. So, people could still purchase the cars just as in the other 49 states but they'd have to ensure they could pass the test. This would mean that people wouldn't purchase cars they could only drive for a year and not resell in the state. It would basically accomplish the same thing but would be protected under the Supreme Court ruling on states having their own CO2 emission standards.
mike 11:26AM (12/20/2007)
This ruling is scary. Here’s why. What it say is that a state has no right to clean its own air, clean its own pollution. Now many will say that CO2 is not a pollutant, but Supreme Court says it is. Also Bush administration will attempt to label other products as non pollutants.
Example: MTBE, Bush administration says that it is not a pollutant and therefore should be allowed to be added to gasoline. There are studies that say it pollutes ground waters, many states have BANNED IT, but now thanks to this ruling Oil companies can lobby white house to pressure EPA to call MTBE a non pollutant (some states to allow its use in gasoline) and it will force every other state to use MTBE----which once again has been proven to contaminate ground waters.
James 11:49AM (12/20/2007)
I don't really agree with that. While some pollution in the valleys of California stay there, pollution is a country (world) wide issue.
This was pointed out elsewhere. As it is a far reaching issue, the governing of it shouldn't be handled on a state level, but by a federal agency.
Chris W 12:42PM (12/20/2007)
States do have the ability to regulate interstate commerce to some extent. How else do you explain the fact that you can't ship wine to Utah? I think that all they need to do is show that they have a compelling interest, and the regulation of pollution in a state with ~30M cars seems to fit the bill.
James 1:13PM (12/20/2007)
Again, not completely true.
I (as an individual) can't ship wine to Utah, but Yellow Tail or (actual company) can.
Gary Blomquist 4:26PM (12/20/2007)
Thank God!!!!! CARB has finally got it's come-uppins...........
Does that mean that we can get the Jeep diesel like the other states too?
CARB has been screwing the California drivers for years with incredibly crazy, economy destroying mandates over and above the Federal EPA mandates.
We don't get automobiles or light duty trucks that the other states get, because we have to have are own fuel formulation, and a higher standard for emissions for gasoline and diesel vehicles.
Please say this will bring this craziness to an end.
I hope this means we can burn Federal EPA Unleaded formulation fuel too.
Solo Racer 12:53PM (12/22/2007)
Gary B., The only cars we don't in Cali. are diesel passenger cars. Light trucks are exempt.
Low-sulphur diesel and unleaded gasoline are federally mandated for use on public highways.
Solo Racer 1:14PM (12/22/2007)
Gary B. a Google search for "Federal EPA Unleaded" turns up only another comment by you. One in which you falsely said that gasoline in the state changes formulation from summer to winter. It does not and has not for nearly 10 years.
And you also seem to be one of the many, including Autoblog, that doesn't understand that the decision is ONLY about CO2. CARB's existence was never at stake.
TURNERSVILLE 8:25AM (12/20/2007)
Plug-ins with no new power plants being built, E85 causing food prices to soar? There was nothing about making more energy in the energy bill. This will only cause energy prices to rise. Poorly planned!! Low energy prices give us an advantage over the rest of the world. We need a energy policy that tackles both our energy needs and the need for better technology!!!
Reply
fm 11:18AM (12/20/2007)
I agree it deals with only one part of the problem. But I have to say E85 hasn't raised all prices. It's actually lowered the price of high fructose corn syrup as it's a biproduct of making ethanol.
As for alternatives, I actually heard that there was a suggestion of making Hydrogen with nuclear reactors. It actually could be feasable to spread a few hundred manufacturing plants all over the country with mini nuclear reactors similar to Toshiba's prototype (and future product: http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/19/toshibas-building-a-micro-nuclear-reactor-for-your-garage/ ). Of course it's not the greenest way of doing it but atleast it'd let us start the hydrgen infrastructure.
Eddy Alvarez 8:25AM (12/20/2007)
or lets hope they use the money saved to keep making ZR1's, Z06's, and SRT8's...with big v8's. ethanol is fine; just don't touch the v8's.
Reply
SOhp101 8:35AM (12/20/2007)
CA emission laws may suck, but it's not the only state that follows CARB rules. The only 'black market' that develops are those who try to bring cars into the state.
R&D spending is not wasted, because whatever emissions standards CARB adopted ends up being the standard throughout the country. If anything it offers an opportunity to sell licenses from a division in the company to another division in the company and the tax benefits that would come with that.
They will probably change the minute details of CARB to let it slide another way. This new legislation only puts excess cash in the pockets of automakers.
The one good thing I can see coming from this is that we will probably see a lot more diesels in CA pretty soon if this law doesn't change.
Reply
Guenther 9:04AM (12/20/2007)
Wrong- also puts excess tax money in the pockets of Lawyers.
Solo Racer 1:04PM (12/22/2007)
EPA ruling DOES NOT EQUAL CAFE bill. They are unrelated.
Diesel standards set by CARB are what the automakers who have announced diesel engines say they are going to meet.
Mulad 8:35AM (12/20/2007)
So how does this mesh with that Supreme Court ruling from a few months back that said the states could implement stricter CO2 standards than the feds? Is that ruling now essentially voided since the law has changed, or are the EPA people just being dicks?
Reply
Reuben 9:59AM (12/20/2007)
Well if the Supreme Court overruled this piece of the new CAFE bill and upheld that prior ruling wouldn't that overrule the entire bill? That would be an interesting step backwards.
Paul 8:54AM (12/20/2007)
It doesnt. The Supreme Court (obviously) wins. This is TECHNICALLY over a different issue as this was SPECIFICALLY about the CARB statute but when Cali DOES sue (as they should) they WILL win due to the S.C. ruling.
laughing boy 2:12PM (12/20/2007)
It didn't. The Supreme Court ruled that CO2 is a potential pollutant under federal clean air laws and that the EPA had to address whether it would regulate it. That's not the same as ruling states could regulate CO2 emissions.
Now, California could get Congress to pass a law to allow states to regulate CO2 and everything would be okay from the Constitutional standpoint. As for the merits of the man-made global warming scam, that's a whole other argument.
Solo Racer 1:39PM (12/22/2007)
Rebuen: "Well if the Supreme Court overruled this piece of the new CAFE bill and upheld that prior ruling wouldn't that overrule the entire bill?"
This ISN'T part of the new CAFE bill. It's an EPA ruling that has nothing to do with the CAFE bill.