12-23-2007, 11:27 AM
|
#23 (permalink)
|
|
Banned
|
I suspected "states rights" was "code" for republican "race baiting" campaign strategy and for eroding a woman's right to choose. What else should one think, considering Reagan's infamous 1980 Neshoba County Fair "performance", and now, this:
Quote:
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...85/1148/AUTO01
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
EPA: California, other states can't impose their own emissions standards on autos
David Shepardson / Detroit News Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- The Environmental Protection Agency today denied a waiver that would have allowed California and at least a dozen other states to impose their own stricter vehicle tailpipe emissions standards under the Clean Air Act.
<h3>"The Bush administration is moving forward with a clear national solution -- not a confusing patchwork of state rules</h3> -- to reduce America's climate footprint from vehicles," EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson said in a statement.
The decision is a victory of sorts for auto makers, who opposed state-by-state regulations.
In November, California sued to force the Environmental Protection Agency to rule whether the state can put its strict vehicle tailpipe emissions standards into effect.
<h3>Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said the state would "sue again and sue again and sue again"</h3> in order to get approval to put in place tough new fuel economy regulations.
"It's all common sense," the governor said of the regulation, saying it was necessary to force new clean technology
California Attorney General Jerry Brown said the suit was necessary to "start pushing Detroit to do the innovations we all know they can do."
California needs a waiver under the Clean Air Act to enact its plan to reduce vehicle greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent by 2016 -- which would require a 43.7 mile per gallon average for passenger cars -- and boost vehicle efficiency by more than 30 percent. A total of 12 states have adopted California's rules, which are set to gradually take effect starting in 2009.
The state of California gave EPA notice in May that it would file suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. to demand a decision if the agency didn't rule within six months.
Schwarzenegger earlier this year told automakers and Detroit to "get off your butt."
"The fact of the matter is what I'm saying is, Arnold to Michigan: Get off your butt. Get off your butt and join us," he said at a speech at Georgetown University.
"What we are doing is we are pushing (automakers) to make changes, to make the changes so they can sell their cars in California," he said. "And we all know -- let's be honest -- that if they don't change, someone will. The Japanese will. The Chinese will. The South Koreans will. The Germans will."
Since 1975, the EPA has never refused California a waiver to implement its own tougher air quality regulations, and approved nearly 50 of them click to show . Before 1975, EPA narrowed the scope of a few California waivers -- by refusing to allow the regulations to go into effect in certain years -- but never rejected new regulations outright.
The EPA and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration are working on their own new tailpipe emission regulation that they will announce before the end of the year -- and have been holding many meetings. At one point, officials hoped to announce a new regulation in November, but The Detroit News reported today that the regulation would be delayed until early next year because of a new energy bill approved by Congress and signed into law today.
President Bush signed an executive order creating the working group after the Supreme Court ruled in April that the EPA has the right to regulate carbon dioxide emission from automobiles as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.
The group is working to craft a regulation that will reduce gasoline usage by 5 percent by 2017 -- or 8.5 billion gallons annually -- by improving vehicle efficiency.
In September, automakers lost a bid to block the rules in U.S. District Court in Vermont. The automakers have filed an appeal with the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. A California federal judge earlier this month also threw out the carmakers challenge, upholding California's right to impose its own standards.
Automakers say the California rules would create an unworkable patchwork of state-by-state auto fleets, which could require companies to eventually stop selling their largest vehicles.
General Motors Corp.'s executive director of GM's environment and energy, Alan Weverstad, testified during the Vermont trial that the California regulations could cost them $25 billion and by 2016 the company still would be 7 mpg short of the mileage requirement.
In turn, an expert for the state of Vermont said the regulation would add about $1,500 per vehicle -- far less than the automakers estimate of as much as $6,000 |
|
|
|