www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall States Rights, what happened here?

U.S. agency says 17 states can't set car emission rules
By John M. Broder and Felicity Barringer
Thursday, December 20, 2007

WASHINGTON: The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday denied California and 16 other states the right to set their own standards for carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles.

The EPA administrator, Stephen Johnson, said the proposed California rules were pre-empted by federal authority and made moot by the energy bill signed into law by President George W. Bush on Wednesday. Johnson said California had failed to make a compelling case that it needed authority to write its own standards for greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks to help curb global warming.

"The Bush administration is moving forward with a clear national solution, not a confusing patchwork of state rules," Johnson said in an evening conference call with reporters. "I believe this is a better approach than if individual states were to act alone."

Other states affected by the ruling included New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.

The decision immediately sparked a heated debate over its scientific basis and whether political pressure was applied by the automobile industry to help it escape the proposed California regulations. State officials and environmental groups vowed to sue to overturn the edict.

The 17 states had waited two years for the Bush administration to issue a ruling on an application to set stricter air quality standards than those adopted by the federal government. The denial of the request, technically known as a Clean Air Act waiver, is the first of more than 50 applications that the federal government has refused to allow California to set its own pollution rules.

The emissions standards California adopted in 2004 � but not been approved by the federal government � would have forced automakers to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent in new cars and light trucks by 2016, with the cutbacks to begin in 2009 models.

That would have translated into roughly 43 miles per gallon for cars and some light trucks and about 27 miles per gallon for heavier trucks and sport utility vehicles.

The new federal law will require automakers to meet a 35-mile-per-gallon fleetwide standard for cars and trucks sold in the United States by 2020. It does not address carbon dioxide emissions, but such emissions would be reduced as cars were forced to become more fuel efficient.

California's proposed rules had sought to address the impact of carbon dioxide and other pollutants from cars and trucks that scientists say contribute to the warming of the planet.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California said the states would go to federal court to reverse the EPA decision.

"It is disappointing that the federal government is standing in our way and ignoring the will of tens of millions of people across the nation," Schwarzenegger said. "We will continue to fight this battle."

He added, "California sued to compel the agency to act on our waiver, and now we will sue to overturn today's decision and allow Californians to protect our environment."

Twelve other states � New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington � had proposed standards like California's, and the governors of Arizona, Colorado, Florida and Utah have said they would do the same.

If the waiver had been granted and the 16 other states had adopted the California standard, it would have covered at least half of all vehicles sold in America.

Automakers praised the decision. "We commend EPA for protecting a national, 50-state program," said David McCurdy, president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. "Enchancing energy security and improving fuel economy are priorities to all automakers, but a patchwork quilt of inconsistent and competing fuel economy programs at the state level would only have created confusion, inefficiency and uncertainty for automakers and consumers."

In recent weeks, the chief executives of the Detroit auto companies were in Washington to lobby for less-stringent regulations.

Industry analysts and environmental groups said the EPA decision had the appearance of a reward to the industry, in return for dropping its opposition to the energy legislation. Auto industry leaders issued statements supporting the new energy law, which gives them more time to improve fuel economy than California would have.

State officials reacted with dismay. The California attorney general, Edmund Brown Jr., called the decision "absurd." He said it ignored a long history of waivers granted California to deal with its special topographical, climate and transportation circumstances, which require tougher standards than those set nationally. Brown noted that federal courts in California and Vermont upheld the California standards this year against challenges by the auto industry.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat, said: "I find this disgraceful. The passage of the energy bill does not give the E.P.A a green light to shirk its responsibility to protect the health and safety of the American people from air pollution."

Representative Henry Waxman, Democrat of California and chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said the decision defied law, science and common sense. He said his committee would investigate how the decision had been made and would seek to reverse it.

Richard Blumenthal, the attorney general of Connecticut, said, "The excuses for this mockery of law and sound public policy are like the outworn treads on automobiles, and the administration will be no more successful in court on this issue than it has been in a string of decisions in our challenges against it."

Andrew Cuomo, the New York attorney general, said the state would challenge the decision.

Johnson, the EPA administrator, cited federal law, not science, as the underpinning of his decision. "Climate change affects everyone regardless of where greenhouse gases occur, so California is not exclusive," he said.

Mary Nichols, the head of the California Air Resources Board, which had geared up to enforce the proposed emissions rules on 2009-model cars, said the reasoning was flawed. "Thirty-five miles per gallon is not the same thing as a comprehensive program for reducing greenhouse gases," Nichols said.

David Doniger, a lawyer for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the decision was scientifically and legally indefensible. Since 1984, Doniger said, the agency has not distinguished between local, national and international air pollution.

"All the smog problems that California has are shared with other states, just like the global warming problems they have are shared with other states," he said.

Interstate Commerce -- like it or not -- has been found to trump states' rights for a long time.

I have no idea how this will play out on appeal, but there are economic externalities when one state goes on their own in such matters. In effect, states who wish to abide by the Federal rules might be forced to abide by California rules, if non-California cars and trucks needed to go to California.

That's one of the reasons why we gave up the Articles of Confederation -- to give these kinds of powers affecting many states, especially in interstate commerce, to the Federal Government.

So far the Supremes have ruled in favour of California and the 16 other States 4-0 against the Feds. They have stated that States have the right to go over and beyond the standard, viewing the Federal level as the minimum standard.

It would be nice if the EPA made a similar declaration setting national fuel formulas.

The Commerce as well as General Welfare clauses of the Constitution have been distorted and twisted completely out of context and beyond recognition. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government authority in auto emissions.

Folks, please give consideration to supporting Ron Paul, if you have not done so.

Robster

There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal Government the right to impose an income tax on individual citizens either -- that "custom" was a by-product of the Civil War!

Absolutely correct Michael.And that's one of the many reasons I'll be campaigning for Ron Paul.

At one time in this country we believed the final authority was the individual state. Now most people believe the federal government always has the last say. In a decade or so, people will believe the final authority is the UN.

"At one time in this country we believed the final authority was the individual state."

Oh, really? Who said this?

Terry

Then how does one explain the 16th Amendment:

I don't get this objection. The amendment quoted is dated Jul 2, 1909. The US Civil war, which was stated as the primary cause of the income tax, ended in the 1860's. What gives?