WHITE HOUSE FINALIZES HISTORIC VEHICLE STANDARDS TO SAVE OIL, CUT POLLUTION, AND CREATE JOBS:

The Obama White House yesterday finalized new clean car rules from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Dept. of Transportation (NHTSA), securing the largest boost in fuel economy in decades and, for the first time, using the Clean Air Act to require reductions in the amount of heat-trapping emissions from cars and light trucks.

“To paraphrase the Vice-president, this is a really big deal,” said Jim Kliesch, a senior engineer in the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Clean Vehicles Program. “Because of these standards, Americans will drive vehicles that save them money at the pump, cut the country’s oil dependence, and produce a lot less global warming pollution.”

The joint rule will boost the average fleetwide fuel economy of new vehicles sold in the United States to 34.1 miles per gallon by model year 2016. The standards also set national global warming pollution standards for vehicles at 250 grams per mile, roughly 25 percent less than the emissions produced by today’s average new vehicle.

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, the new rule will:

 * Reduce U.S. oil consumption by 1.2 million barrels per day by 2020–more petroleum than the United States presently imports from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait combined;

 * Cut emissions of global warming pollution by 209 million metric tons in 2020, the equivalent of taking nearly 31 million of today’s cars and light trucks off the road that year;

 * Save drivers $34 billion in 2020 even after they pay the cost of vehicle technology improvements. (This is based on $2.75 per gallon. If gas prices spike to $4 a gallon again, the new standards would save drivers $58 billion in 2020.)

 * Create up to 20,000 new jobs in the auto industry and up to 200,000 nationwide by 2020.

This historic announcement demonstrates the important role that states have played in promoting clean vehicle technology.  In 2002, CALIFORNIA passed AB 1493, authored by then-Assemblywoman Fran Pavley.  Then, the state used its unique authority under the Clean Air Act to set the first global warming tailpipe emissions standards for cars and light trucks. Over time, 13 other states chose to adopt the California standards in an effort to reduce tailpipe pollution.

Legal challenges by the automakers to the state standards were struck down twice–by federal courts in Vermont and California, and in 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA affirmed that the Clean Air Act gives authority to EPA and California to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. This ruling also directed EPA to address any threat climate change poses to human health and welfare. This legal decision formed the foundation for the EPA standards finalized today.

As part of the agreement that led to the new national standards, the states will defer to the new federal standards through 2016, although they preserve the authority to set higher standards in the future. The California Air Resources Board is in the process of developing stronger standards that would go into effect in 2017.

“The states laid the groundwork for these national standards,” said Brendan Bell, a Washington representative in the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Clean Vehicles Program. “Because of their leadership, all Americans will enjoy the benefits of cleaner, more efficient vehicles.”

For more information on the benefits and structure of the new standards, please see the UCS new factsheet –

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/d…  

(always great to have DMI cross-posting their stuff here from Tort Deform. – promoted by Julia Rosen)

California is pressing on in its challenge against the EPA for turning down its proposed emissions rules, adopted by 12 other states and supported by three more as well. ( NYT, BBC) The proposed standards would provide tighter protections to the public against the harmful effects of vehicle emissions on the environment, an issue screaming in its relevancy these days.

From the New York Times:

“An analysis released by state air regulators showed their 2004 tailpipe regulation would be faster and tougher than the federal fuel economy rules… By 2016, California’s standard would reduce the amount of carbon dioxide that vehicles produce by 45.4 million metric tons a year in California and the 12 other states that have already adopted the rules. That’s nearly double the 23.4 million metric tons the report forecast would be cut under the federal fuel-efficiency standards, according to the analysis, which was based on EPA air pollution modeling.”

But the EPA said “no thanks” to this proposal, preferring its apparently looser standards to California’s plan. This is the EPA’s “first time denying California a waiver under the Clean Air Act since Congress gave the state the right to obtain such waivers in 1967,” according to the NYT.

The EPA’s decision has been described as a victory for the auto industry. Automakers opposed the California rules as too strict, saying they would “reduce their selection of vehicles and raise prices in states that adopted California’s standards.” So in other words, it’s better to have a ton of cheaper cars to choose from, regardless of how badly they’re polluting the air we breathe.



Now if that ain’t like driving off a cliff in a brand new beemer, I don’t know what is…

For formality’s sake, here are some (I hope, not too annoyingly obvious) thoughts on why this lawsuit a) is important and b) further demonstrates the importance of our civil justice system as a means for checking corporate/government cronyism and the bad policies that are produced as a result:

Tort “reformers” argue that if aggrieved individuals and groups want things to change, they should change the rules of the game through legislation. First they say, “So sue me!” But if they actually get sued, they insist that the issue is better suited for the legislature than the courtroom. They paint this picture of whiney, attention-seeking plaintiffs making an overblown fuss about corporations letting off a wee bit too much smoke for their overly sensitive, air-greedy little lungs. (Geez, people can get so dramatic about their ability to breathe.)

But here’s what’s interesting in this scenario: there are clearly no whine-bags here. Here we have a bi-partisan effort, which legitimately went through the legislative process and was signed by the Governor. We have standards that have the support of at least 15 other states. Yet this effort was obstructed by the government agency charged with protecting our environment, although in the past the EPA has granted California’s waivers to impose stricter environmental standards.

This situation demonstrates clear as day how important it is to have a strong civil court system dedicated to administering justice to the public. In addition to the legislative process, we need our civil justice system as a means of providing public oversight of the federal government when its decisions conflict with the public’s interest and/or with our cherished democratic process.

According to the NYT, Schwarzenegger said that EPA officials ”are ignoring the will of millions of people who want their government to take action in the fight against global warming.” This lawsuit is California’s way of saying “We refuse to lose something we need and treasure–a right to a healthier environment–without a good fight.” Several other states are expected to join California in its claim.

Well I say sue on, Cali. Your day in court is ours, too.