California Pushes EPA On Emissions Laws
Top California officials implored federal environmental regulators Tuesday for permission to unilaterally impose reductions on greenhouse gases from cars and other vehicles. An auto industry official dismissed the state's approach as "counterproductive."
If California gets the federal waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency that it needs to implement its emissions law, at least 11 other states are prepared to follow its lead.
"This is more important than any issue that EPA's going to have to face," California Attorney General Jerry Brown told an EPA air quality hearing board.
Brown asked the regulators to relay a message to EPA administrator Stephen Johnson.
"We want him to speak truth to power," said Brown. "There is a tremendous influence of the oil industry. We know (Vice President) Cheney and (President) Bush are oilmen, they think like oil folks. ... We say grant the waiver."
The EPA panel that gathered in suburban Arlington, Va., was led by Margo Oge, director of EPA's office of transportation and air quality. She gave no indication of how the agency might be leaning as a daylong hearing got under way.
At issue is a 2002 California law that requires automakers to cut emissions by 25 percent from cars and light trucks and 18 percent from sport utility vehicles starting with the 2009 model year. The law can't take effect unless California gets a federal waiver.
While air pollution standards typically are set by the federal government, California has a unique status under the federal Clean Air Act that allows the state to enact its own rules as long as it receives permission from the EPA. Other states can then choose to follow either the federal or California standards.
The EPA has declined to say how it will act on the waiver request, and Tuesday's hearing came after more than a year of inaction since the state submitted its petition in 2005.
The session included some two dozen witnesses from environmental groups and other states including Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Maryland speaking in favor of California's law. A representative from the Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association was in favor of the law, as was the owner of a chain of car dealerships.
Adam Lee, president of a chain of Maine auto dealerships, said automakers have hurt their reputations by opposing other federal requirements in the past, such as smog controls and seat belts, reports the Detroit Free Press. Lee also pointed out that many companies give rebates on larger models such as the GMC Yukon.
"I think the auto industry needs to try a little harder, and I don't think they will try any harder until enough states force them to," Lee said.
A lone voice of opposition came from Steve Douglas of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. He contended that California had not proven that its rules would actually reduce global warming, and that a national approach would be better.
"A patchwork of state-level fuel economy regulations as is now proposed by California is not simply unnecessary, it's patently counterproductive," Douglas said. The state's waiver request "contains many assumptions and undocumented claims" about its benefits in countering global warming, he said.
Automakers also contend that California officials underestimated the costs of its proposal, the Free Press reports.
The auto industry has sued California and Vermont in an attempt to block the regulation, arguing that emissions standards are de-facto fuel economy standards — which can only be set by the federal government.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last month said the state will sue if the EPA does not act on the state's request by October 25.
"We're preparing a lawsuit but we certainly don't want to bring it," Brown told the panel Tuesday.
The auto regulations are a key part of California's overall strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which scientists blame for the Earth's warming temperature over the last three decades. The state is the world's 12th-largest producer of greenhouse gas emissions, 40 percent of which come from transportation sources.
The state last year embarked on a statewide effort to reduce emissions by 25 percent by 2020. A 2006 law relies on the auto regulations to accomplish 17 percent of the overall target.
President Bush last week signed an executive order giving federal agencies until the end of 2008 to continue studying the threat of greenhouse gas emissions and what to do about them. Critics fear the directive could undermine state efforts.
In an opinion piece published in The Washington Post on Monday, Schwarzenegger and Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell said Mr. Bush's directive "sounds like more of the same inaction and denial."
© 2010 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report. If California gets the federal waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency that it needs to implement its emissions law, at least 11 other states are prepared to follow its lead.
"This is more important than any issue that EPA's going to have to face," California Attorney General Jerry Brown told an EPA air quality hearing board.
Brown asked the regulators to relay a message to EPA administrator Stephen Johnson.
"We want him to speak truth to power," said Brown. "There is a tremendous influence of the oil industry. We know (Vice President) Cheney and (President) Bush are oilmen, they think like oil folks. ... We say grant the waiver."
The EPA panel that gathered in suburban Arlington, Va., was led by Margo Oge, director of EPA's office of transportation and air quality. She gave no indication of how the agency might be leaning as a daylong hearing got under way.
At issue is a 2002 California law that requires automakers to cut emissions by 25 percent from cars and light trucks and 18 percent from sport utility vehicles starting with the 2009 model year. The law can't take effect unless California gets a federal waiver.
While air pollution standards typically are set by the federal government, California has a unique status under the federal Clean Air Act that allows the state to enact its own rules as long as it receives permission from the EPA. Other states can then choose to follow either the federal or California standards.
The EPA has declined to say how it will act on the waiver request, and Tuesday's hearing came after more than a year of inaction since the state submitted its petition in 2005.
The session included some two dozen witnesses from environmental groups and other states including Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Maryland speaking in favor of California's law. A representative from the Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association was in favor of the law, as was the owner of a chain of car dealerships.
Adam Lee, president of a chain of Maine auto dealerships, said automakers have hurt their reputations by opposing other federal requirements in the past, such as smog controls and seat belts, reports the Detroit Free Press. Lee also pointed out that many companies give rebates on larger models such as the GMC Yukon.
"I think the auto industry needs to try a little harder, and I don't think they will try any harder until enough states force them to," Lee said.
A lone voice of opposition came from Steve Douglas of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. He contended that California had not proven that its rules would actually reduce global warming, and that a national approach would be better.
"A patchwork of state-level fuel economy regulations as is now proposed by California is not simply unnecessary, it's patently counterproductive," Douglas said. The state's waiver request "contains many assumptions and undocumented claims" about its benefits in countering global warming, he said.
Automakers also contend that California officials underestimated the costs of its proposal, the Free Press reports.
The auto industry has sued California and Vermont in an attempt to block the regulation, arguing that emissions standards are de-facto fuel economy standards — which can only be set by the federal government.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last month said the state will sue if the EPA does not act on the state's request by October 25.
"We're preparing a lawsuit but we certainly don't want to bring it," Brown told the panel Tuesday.
The auto regulations are a key part of California's overall strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which scientists blame for the Earth's warming temperature over the last three decades. The state is the world's 12th-largest producer of greenhouse gas emissions, 40 percent of which come from transportation sources.
The state last year embarked on a statewide effort to reduce emissions by 25 percent by 2020. A 2006 law relies on the auto regulations to accomplish 17 percent of the overall target.
President Bush last week signed an executive order giving federal agencies until the end of 2008 to continue studying the threat of greenhouse gas emissions and what to do about them. Critics fear the directive could undermine state efforts.
In an opinion piece published in The Washington Post on Monday, Schwarzenegger and Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell said Mr. Bush's directive "sounds like more of the same inaction and denial."
Popular in Politics
- Obama on NSA programs: Americans "not getting the complete story" 131 Comments
- Snowden: U.S. gov't destroyed my chance for fair trial 292 Comments
- McCain demands answers from Obama on "secret" email accounts 94 Comments
- Supreme Court strikes down Arizona voting law 691 Comments
- Amnesty Int'l calls for arrest of George W. Bush
- On Syria, U.S. and Russia have different perspectives, says Obama
- Obama in Europe for G8 as Syria crisis looms large
- Report: Obama's Africa trip could cost $60-100 million
"What we need is not a new set of regulations plastered over the old ones, but a careful re-thinking of all of the regulations, in light of new knowledge, and the revocation of all inappropriate regulations before new (and contradictory) ones are added."
Your point is well stated!
What WE need is a COMPLETE REEVALUATION of emissions, fuels, enegines, and combustion strategies to arrive at the TOP TWO (2) "LEAST HARM" SOLUTIONS [available based on TODAY's technology] to OUR future automotive needs.
Then follow that up with the TOP TWO (2) "LEAST HARM" SOLUTIONS for the future based on most promising evolving technology.
Then work like "crazy" to get them into the market and to the consumer!
What we need is not a new set of regulations plastered over the old ones, but a careful re-thinking of all of the regulations, in light of new knowledge, and the revocation of all inappropriate regulations before new (and contradictory) ones are added.
The Supreme Court verdict that the EPA must regulate carbon dioxide should be interpreted to require the recall and removal of all of those automotive emission controls which increase carbon dioxide production, and to require the agencies (EPA etc.) which required these devices to pay for this removal.
That is the same period that that the GOVERNMENT (US TAXPAYERS) provided $ BILLIONs for development of loser emissions and higher fuel economy vehicles! And this is what WE got. CAFE is "PUSHING A ROPE"!
Of course WE should not despair ... I think that these investments are what enabled the EU to have those CLEANER and HIGHER MPG vehicles!
So, IF the Detroit3 can't/won't immediately commit to production volumes of vehicles by 2010 with CO2 emissions below 140 g/km and 44 mpg(US) combined average ...
THEN demand that Congress should WAIVE ALL IMPORT RESTRICTIONS AND TARIFFS on vehicles that do get 44 mpg or better, CO2 less than 140 g/km, and meet Euro Step IV (or Step V) emissions and Safety standards; Effective IMMEDIATELY for a period of 36 months (OR 300,000 units of each model satisfying the criteria) EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.
EU regulations on CO2 fleet average/manufacturer emissions, currently at 160 g/km going to 140 g/km in 2008 with 130 g/km being discussed for 2012, have resulted in a significant number of vehicles with lower emissions AND coincidentially, higher combined average mpg.
There are already about 340 vehicles that meet or beat the 2008 CO2 emission level of 140 g/km. These machines generally get better than 44 mpg(US) combined city/highway.
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search/
As you probably already know it is almost impossible to get this type of information on US vehicles. The general range for "domestic" Det3 product seem to range from a minimum of to 240 up to (and possibly above) 500 g/km.
And, that does not even address the 10x greater sulfur and 2x greater thermal emissions of these Det3 "domestic" products!
For what it is worth ...
If you want to drive me on all my sales calls, or ride with parents who have to take their children to day care and pick them up, or school, or take others on errands after work, or drive 5 miles to pick up a co-worker 10 miles from work, so we can all use "public transportation", then register your clean-bus service and make sure it's cheaper than us driving ourselves.
In other words, the worst of the 48+ vehicles the Det3 and their associates are manufacturing and selling * IN * Europe * get 69.8% better gas mileage than the 25.9 mpg average of the 19 "best mpg domestic vehicles". In fact, five (5) of the EU FORDs have over 100% higher combined mpg. For fun, take a look at the Ford New Mondeo (May 2007) [50 mpg(US) highway]! or the Ford 8/9 passenger Tourneo van [35 mpg(US) highway]!
See: http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search
How can WE get fuel effect low emissions vehicles like the 50 to 70 mpg(US) highway less than 140 g/km CO2 vehicles listed in http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search
IF the Detroit3 will not immediately commit to production volumes of 44 mpg(US) combined average vehicles by 2010 ...
THEN demand that Congress should WAIVE ALL IMPORT RESTRICTIONS AND TARIFFS on vehicles that do get 44 mpg or better, CO2 less than 140 g/km, and meet Euro Step IV (or Step V) emissions and Safety standards; Effective IMMEDIATELY for a period of 36 months (OR 300,000 units of each model satisfying the criteria) EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.
IF YOU THINK the WAIVER idea is reasonable after OUR 30 year wait and $Billions of TAXPAYER funds expended for the development and implementation of low emissions and higher mpg vehicles ... please CALL YOUR ELECTED Representatives in DC and tell them you want "44 mpg by 2010 - WAIVE IMPORT RESTRICTIONS if that is the only way!"
PASS IT ON ...
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byMPG.htm
Then, their 2008 mpg combined average values were established using
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorSelectYear.jsp
to determine their fuel economy ratings under the 2008 methods. The average mpg(US) combined city/highway for these 34 vehicles is 28.7 mpg using the 2008 method.
The 15 Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Nissan, and Toyota vehicles yield an average of 32.1 mpg(US) combined city/highway using the 2008 methods.
The remaining 19 "best mpg domestic" vehicles yield an average of 25.9 mpg(US) combined city/highway using the 2008 methods.
NOT ONE of these 19 "best mpg domestic vehicles" has a combined average over 30 mpg according to the 2008 criteria !
The CO2 emissions the 19 "best mpg domestic vehicles" range from 240 g/km and significantly higher. Many domestic machines are in the 350 to 500 g/km range.
On the other hand, the auto companies with significant sales in the USA (or their Euro partners) have over 48 vehicles in Europe that achieve over 44 mpg(US) combined average. A majority are diesels meeting Euro Step IV emission (and soon Step V) with CO2 emissions below ** 140 g/km **. By comparison, the "domestics" typically range between 240 and 500 g/km. Here is a list of these high mpg vehicles in Europe http://www.40mpg.org/pdfs/021407_fuel_efficient_vehicle_gap.xls
themselves for their problems with pollution. California residents and their government
try to require non-residents to make changes to solve California's problems.
That is, force the carmakers to decrease tailpipe emissions for the whole country.
California can get the decrease they want and more, by changing there own transportation
habits. Try some self-sacrifice.
The California citizens can limit the engine and vehicle size themselves, by law if necessary.
Limit engines to four cylinder for all personal vehicles, "50% increase in vehicle mileage". Companies can use whatever size is necessary, but only for business use.
California residents do not need four wheel drive, maximum horsepower vehicles.
The vehicle size change can give immediate emission reduction, not reductions five to ten
years from now. No effect on the rest of the country. Plenty of business for import
vehicle manufacturers, and hurt for the domestic manufacturers "quite popular with California
residents".
Get some common sense and start public transportation, and state wide rail service.
---
You are much too easily amazed (and deceived)-- try leaving Faux News Network out of your daily diet.
"Hundreds of thousands of cars sitting idle for hours" is not the only green answer to TENS of hundreds of thousands of individuals like you driving one car per person. Mass transit is used around the world with great success where public policy supports its use.
But your last statement indicts your abyssmal level of knowledge-- "... it's a crime for one state to dictate an already VERY clean industry."
Rather, it is a crime for the EPA to fail to act (according to its legal mandate) against greenhouse gases. If you disagree, tell it to the US Supreme Court.
If American cars are less fuel efficient, clean running, and reliable, then I'll just continue to buy a Toyota or a Honda.