Last Friday, April 29th, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit dismissed a challenge to EPA’s “California waiver”. That waiver permitted California to set its own greenhouse-gas emissions for new vehicles. Because CO2 was the major gas that California was seeking to control, its rules amounted to a new, more stringent automotive fuel-economy standard. And because at least 14 other states had adopted California’s standard, its actions may well have effectively replaced the federal CAFE standard with a higher one set in Sacramento.
The California waiver has a complicated history. CARB (the California Air Resources Board) originally filed its waiver request with EPA in late 2005, claiming that the state had a uniquely compelling need to control atmospheric CO2 levels. (The fact that the alleged problem at issue is global warming, not California warming, apparently didn’t faze CARB.) After deliberating for more than two years, EPA denied CARB’s request, finding that it hadn’t demonstrated any extraordinary conditions to justify the waiver.
But in January 2009, one day after President Obama was sworn in, CARB resubmitted its request, and EPA granted the waiver several months later. Then, in April 2010, the Administration, California and the auto industry struck a deal which imposed a higher set of federal fuel economy standards through model year 2016. During that time, California agreed to merge its own newly-approved standards into the federal program, giving the auto industry the national uniformity in standards that it dearly wanted.
As part of the deal, the automakers agreed not to litigate the California waiver. The Chamber of Commerce and NADA (the National Auto Dealers Association), however, filed their own lawsuit, and it was this case that the D.C. Circuit dismissed last week. The court did not reach the merits of the case, ruling instead that neither party had standing to bring the action because they had not shown injury to their members.
[click to continue…]
How many agencies does it take to regulate fuel economy?
Only one — the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) — if we follow the law (1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act); three — NHTSA + EPA + the California Air Resources Board — if law is trumped by the backroom, “put nothing in writing,” Presidential Records Act-defying deal negotiated by former Obama Environment Czar Carol Browner.
Tomorrow, the Senate is expected to vote on S. 493, the McConnell amendment, which is identical to S. 482, the Inhofe-Upton Energy Tax Prevention Act. S. 493 would overturn all of EPA’s greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations except for the GHG/fuel economy standards EPA and NHTSA jointly issued for new motor vehicles covering model years 2012-2016, and the GHG/fuel economy standards the agencies have proposed for medium- and heavy-duty trucks covering model years 2014-2018. The legislation would leave intact NHTSA’s separate statutory authority to regulate fuel economy standards for automobiles after model year 2016 and trucks after model year 2018.
Bear in mind that GHG emission standards and fuel economy standards are largely duplicative. As EPA acknowledges, 94-95% of all GHG emissions from motor vehicles are carbon dioxide (CO2) from the combustion of motor fuels. And as EPA and NHTSA acknowledge, “there is a single pool of technologies for addressing these twin problems [climate change, oil dependence], i.e., those that reduce fuel consumption and thereby reduce CO2 emissions as well” (Joint GHG/Fuel Economy Rule, p. 25327).
The National Auto Dealers Association (NADA), whose members know a thing or two about what it takes to meet the needs of the car-buying public, sent a letter to the Senate today urging a “Yes” vote on S. 493. NADA stresses three points. S. 493 would:
- End, after 2016, the current triple regulation of fuel economy by three different agencies (NHTSA, EPA, and California) under three different rules.
- Restore a true single national fuel economy standard under the CAFE program, with rules set by Congress, not unelected officials. Ensure jobs, consumer choice, and highway safety are considered according to federal law when setting a fuel economy standard.
- Save taxpayers millions of dollars by ending EPA’s duplicative fuel economy regime after 2016.
Let’s examine the first two points in a bit more detail. The NADA letter says: [click to continue…]
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
CEI.org