Sixteen states tell the EPA: We'll see you in court
The new CAFE legislation contains a provision to keep individual states from coming up with their own standards. California applied to the EPA for a waiver to enforce its own stricter emissions standards. When the EPA administrator, Stephen Johnson, planned to deny that waiver, Johnson's in-house team told him he could expect states to sue the EPA. He did it anyway. And now sixteen states and five environmental groups are suing the Environmental Protection Agency.
The legal charge is being led by California, which has never been denied a waver before, and can't understand why it's being denied now (cue: conspiracy theories). Johnson said the EPA's own rules will do more to prevent global warming than the stricter standards California wants to adopt. Jerry Brown, California's Attorney General, called the EPA's action "shocking in its incoherence and utter failure to provide legal justification for the administrator's unprecedented action."
The Golden State is being joined by Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington in the lawsuit. The auto industry, which spent a lot of time, money and manpower to keep states from being able to choose individual standards, will be watching this closely. If California wins, though, it doesn't appear the industry will have any recourse but to lift its game that much further... and charge consumers for it.
[Source: Automotive News - Sub. Req.]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
JPorter 7:33AM (1/03/2008)
I'm all for environmental responsibility, but I have to say that having different standards for different states is a massively bad idea. If Americans are REALLY interested in protecting the environment, we MUST have a NATIONAL standard that would protect all states, taking into consideration the largest US cities (NY, LA, Chicago, Houston) that require a stricter regulation of emissions in order to protect air quality.
Reply
mike 8:59AM (1/03/2008)
Dude you CAN NOT be this dumb. You simply can't. How many times do you need to be told that there can be only 2 standards.
Federal and California, and each state can chose one of them.
One more time
FEDERAL (national) or CALIFORNIA,
CALIFORNIA or FEDERAL
oh i forgot, there's one more
FEDERAL OR CALIFORNIA
Now i know you will claim that this is the first time you heard of this but to all those who have been posting here that we are going to have a different state with it's own laws....#1 stop BSing #2 Read the law..............it allows Federal government to set laws and California is allowed to set its own...................and every state must choose ONE OR THE OTHER.
JPorter 10:40AM (1/03/2008)
- Mike:
You seem to be the one who has missed something. A couple of weeks ago, President Bush signed the new CAFE regulations into law. They provide one national standard for automobile emissions and the director of the EPA deemed granting any waivers to individual states to set their own standards to be unnecessary.
There is NO EXPRESSED provision in the law allowing California (or anyone else for that matter) to have it's own standards. If that was the case, there would be no need to even discuss this at all because the director would be violating the very regulation he's trying to enforce! You are just plain wrong!
Under the old legislation, the EPA found it necessary to grant waivers to California in order to protect their air quality, but that is not so under these regulations.
I've got a feeling that the President, some key Congressmen, and the Automotive Industry Lobbyists came to a mutual agreement on this and that is why the lobbyists backed off and the bill finally passed with ease and was signed so quickly.
No thanks to BOB 1:12PM (1/03/2008)
This is the United STATES of America. According to the Constitution, the federal government cannot regulate states rights. California can regulate their air quality anyway they want. Anyone with an 8th grade education knows this.
Sorry Detriot, the only way you are going to win this is by putting the federal gov't in you pocket. Wait, you already did that...
simianspeedster 4:17PM (1/03/2008)
No thanks to BOB:
You might want to consult someone who continued on beyond 8th grade.
The Federal government *absolutely* has the ability to govern and exercise power over certain areas of the law. The tussle between federal and state rights is nowhere near as simple as you have described it -- almost 250 years of U.S. history have proved that.
In this case, it's certainly not clear that air belongs to any individual state nor that it wouldn't be better for the federal government to adopt stricter national standards.
-SimianSpeedster
John Smith 7:34AM (1/03/2008)
I hope they lose.
Good riddance to bad Socialism.
When will this "Global Warming" bunk be all over?
Reply
Tim 9:17AM (1/03/2008)
It will be over when large portions of the coastal areas all over the world are swamped by rising sea levels, forcing millions (billions?) of people to migrate inland, thereby overcrowding the rest of us and straining our food and water supplies to the point that we start either starving to death or killing each other over what's left, or more likely, both.
Then, once the dust settles and we're forced back into an agrarian existence just to survive, there won't be any more pollution being dumped into the atmosphere, and as forests take over abandoned cities, the resurgence of plant life will eventually restore balance to the planet's atmosphere as it slowly pulls the billions of tons of carbon out of the air.
That's when this Global Warming "bunk" will be over.
No thanks to BOB 1:19PM (1/03/2008)
You are everything that is wrong with this country. John Smith reads modern day Benedict Arnold.
3000GT TwinTurbo 5:48PM (1/03/2008)
@Tim
Thats going to happen anyways, just like it's happened dozens of time in the past couple million years...NATURALLY. After Ice Ages (the point we are now), the ice caps melt and receed, raising sea level. species that can't adapt to the change in climate go extinct (sorry polar bears...looks like your on the list this time). And in another x00'000 years there will be another ice age. Its a natural cycle that the earth goes through. The earth is going to get quite a bit warmer before it starts to cool down again, just like its been doing since before humans evolved and just like it will continue to do after we're gone. Help yourself to a science book.
To give you some idea of refrence, we are currently about a half of a degree above the average global temperature. In the last few cycles it reached about 10 degrees above average before to cooled back down to about 10 degrees below average (ice ages).
graviton 7:34AM (1/03/2008)
No matter how anti environmentalist you may be, you have to admit the EPA wasn't thinking when they made this decision. Disenfranchising 16 states and telling them that they can't be more strict in their policies is very unamerican.
Reply
JPorter 7:38AM (1/03/2008)
Actually Gravitron, that isn't "Un-American" at all. There are many issues to which the Federal government has expressed powers and denies State government any oversight. Maybe you should brush up on your government before commenting on it.
graviton 10:28AM (1/03/2008)
That may be the case, however a State's right to govern themselves is a pretty difficult thing for the federal government to overcome unless they have good reason. Also there is precedent that environmental criteria can be set by the State, so in this case I suggest you brush up on government, or stop being a condescending prick. Your choice.
Alex 11:31AM (1/03/2008)
Issues like environment should be handled at the federal lever for the pure reason that pollution does not follow arbitrary state borders.
The pollution New York dumps into the Delaware River contaminates waterways in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Now the people in New Jersey and Pennsylvania have to pay additional taxes and other costs to clean up another state's mess. That is total crap.
I'm all for saving the environment but it needs to be done in a fashion that is logical. Allowing every state to dictate its own standards reeks of poor planning.
500 1:36PM (1/03/2008)
Well then graviton, states should be allowed to opt out of CAFE too.
500 1:40PM (1/03/2008)
...or all federAl emissions, safety and fuel economy regulations too.
simianspeedster 4:17PM (1/03/2008)
Gravitron:
Please define "unamerican." It's a pretty vague and loaded word to throw around when trying to make a point.
-SimianSpeedster
cowbell 7:44AM (1/03/2008)
Has anyone heard anything about what new standards these 16 states want to impose? What I'm specifically curious about if these new regulations they want to make would affect any of the new diesels? For example, would Bluetec still be a go in CA?
Reply
John Smith 7:47AM (1/03/2008)
Indeed, here is an opportunity for the Supreme Court to use that "Commerce Clause" they so love.
The Ninth Circus (and Ginsberg) must be doing their stretches for yet another round of highly competitive judicial gymnastics.
Reply
TheCleaner 7:50AM (1/03/2008)
Hang on, as im from the Uk, something confuses me.
CA wants to impose 'STRICTER' and therefore more 'cleaner' laws, but the 'environmental protection' agency wont let them? it doesnt make sense? or is that the point. Just doesnt read right..
i thought the waver would be so the sueing states can have less strict emissions regulations?
Reply
tonupdamien 8:02AM (1/03/2008)
@john smith
"When will this "Global Warming" bunk be all over?"
can you please go back to redneckblog.com or wherever else you came from and stop whining about the people who are actually trying to save this planet for hummer driving people like you.