A victory for hybrids

[hill]

I know it's 10 days old but it made my day.

http://www.vtd.uscourts.gov/Supporting%20F...ses/05cv302.pdf

"MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) - A federal judge on Wednesday ruled that states can regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, rejecting automakers' claims that the state rules are pre-empted by federal law and that technology can't be developed to meet them.

"There is no question that the GHG (greenhouse gas) regulations present great challenges to automakers," Judge William Sessions III, sitting in the U.S. District Court in Burlington, wrote at the conclusion of a 240-page decision issued Wednesday.

He added, "History suggests that the ingenuity of the industry, once put in gear, responds admirably to most
technological challenges. In light of the public statements of industry representatives, history of compliance with previous technological challenges, and the state of the record, the Court remains unconvinced automakers cannot meet the challenges of Vermont and California's GHG regulations."

During a 16-day trial that concluded in May, auto industry executives testified that the regulations adopted by California and 11 other states would not stop global warming but would impose devastating new costs on the industry.

Slated to start phasing in as of 2009, the limits would require a 30 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks by 2016, a standard the car makers have maintained
would require average fuel economy standards for cars and the lightest category of trucks of 43.7 miles per
gallon."

I'm sure it'll go the the Fed Supremes, but I'm expecting them to beat them back at that level too.
When hasen't the auto industry cried, "It'll cost too much" ... "It'll put us out of business!" They'd rather spend the $$$ taking the legislation to court. Shades of catylitic converters ... and seat belts, and padded dashes, and air bags, safety glass, crumple zones, steering collums that wouldn't punch through your lungs ... etc

[apriusfan]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hill @ Sep 23 2007, 04:25 PM) [snapback]516652[/snapback]</div>

...I'm sure it'll go the the Fed Supremes, but I'm expecting them to beat them back at that level too.[/b]

It kind of depends on when & who files. California has been stymied in its efforts to regulate Green House Gas (GHG) emissions because the feds won't give them a waiver to regulate GHGs. Wonder why that is.... So there is this nasty little lawsuit that Gerry Brown (CA Atty. General) filed to force the feds to grant a waiver. The latest response is that the feds are going to formulate their own GHG regulations, which would obviate the need for a separate state-level GHG regulation framework. Want to guess whether the federal GHG regs will be as strong as the state one would be? Trying to force the feds hand on specific regulation(s) in front of the Fed Supremes may not be as good a strategy given the current composition of the Supremes. A better strategy may be to wait until there is a regime change and try to get more stringent regulations from a democratic congress and executive.

[MikeSF]

Hasn't California been doing this for some time now?

[apriusfan]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MikeSF @ Sep 24 2007, 04:25 PM) [snapback]517131[/snapback]</div>

Hasn't California been doing this for some time now?
[/b]

Doing what for some time? If you are referring to a different automotive emissions specification, they have been doing it their way for some time based on the original waiver from the Feds (that was given in somewhere around the 1969 timeframe). They now want to manage GHG (as in CO2) emissions, which wasn't covered in the original waiver.

[MikeSF]

Ahh gotcha. Just bunched up all "emissions" under one roof (no pun) and figured that because CA has been well above the federal average (as have other states) that this was a no-brainer decision.