Auto pollution: California's carbon curbs upheld by appeals court

California's authority to pass its own air pollution standards, when they are stricter than federal law, withstood legal challenge Friday when a U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Automobile Dealers Assn. did not have legal standing in the case.

Under the 1970 Clean Air Act, California may request waivers of federal standards in order to
enact its own, stricter laws -- a right granted because the state had its own pollution laws before the federal government’s.

However, the George W. Bush administration refused to grant California a waiver after it enacted a 2004 law to curb planet-heating carbon dioxide emissions from cars. The Obama administration issued the waiver in 2009, but it was challenged by the Chamber and the auto dealers. Fourteen other states had adopted the California standard.

The three-judge panel of the Washington, D.C., Circuit court found that "because the Chamber has not identified a single member who was or would be injured by EPA's waiver decision, it lacks standing to raise this challenge." Nor had the dealers, it said, proved economic harm.

In the end, California and the Obama administration last year issued joint regulations that would curb carbon dioxide pollution by 30% in cars through the 2016 model year. However, environmentalists were concerned that a successful court challenge could thwart future California waivers, as the state prepares to adopt stricter clean-car standards for post-2016 models.

The fact that no California waiver was needed in the pending case may have influenced the court ruling. "Even if EPA's decision to grant California a waiver for its emission standards once posed an imminent threat of injury to the petitioners -- which is far from clear -- the agency's subsequent adoption of federal standards has eliminated any independent threat that may have existed," it said.

Vickie Patton, general counsel of the Environmental Defense Fund, hailed the decision as "a major victory ... to break our dependence on oil, save families money at the gas pump and reduce dangerous pollution." 

David Doniger, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, said "It is gratifying to see an instance of using standing doctrines evenhandedly against industry-oriented challengers who have no concrete stake in their ideological position."

The U.S. Chamber and the auto dealers have vigorously opposed congressional efforts to pass legislation to curb greenhouse gases from cars, power plants and other industrial sources, saying they would harm the economy. Scientific studies show that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are heating Earth's atmosphere and changing the climate.

California is now negotiating with the EPA and the National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration on a second round of clean-car standards for new vehicle models through 2025.  Environmentalists are urging rules to hike average fuel economy to 60 miles per gallon and cut carbon pollution by another 40%.

In a statement, the auto dealers association said, "The court failed to even reach the strong merits of our arguments. Unfortunately, this decision leaves in place the existing, extraneous California fuel economy standards. The current system of three overlapping sets of regulations -- set by NHTSA, EPA and California -- makes it more likely that automakers will be forced to build a fleet that does not match consumer demand."

RELATED:

Greenest Cars: Honda natural gas Civic and Nissan Leaf

California air chief blasts auto trade group

Freeway air pollution linked to brain damage in mice

-- Margot Roosevelt

Photo:The southbound 110 Freeway as seen from Elysian Park in the late morning. Credit: Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times

 

Comments

[Greg Henderson]

Look up Zenn cars made in Canada Zero Emissions No Noise

[JeffU]

"The current system of three overlapping sets of regulations -- set by NHTSA, EPA and California -- makes it more likely that automakers will be forced to build a fleet that does not match consumer demand."

Really? FORCED? Consumers won't wanted fuel efficiency?

What a scare tactic!

Right now I have over 4000 miles on my 2011 Chevy Volt and have bought only 4.6,($20) worth of gas in 4 months. I drive 91% of the time on my home's electricity at a cost of $.03 a mile. Thats 376 MPG and 36kW per 100 miles.

The volt is a fast and powerful, fun to drive, sharp handling America style luxury car.

A fleet average of 60 MPG is attainable NOW and certainly attainable by 2025.

Plugin Electric cars work and they work now.

Say NO to gas! Drive Electric, Live Free.

[Stephanie]

A great boon for states rights! As a Californian I am so happy to see that we are allowed to adopt our own laws regulating car emissions. I personally get tired of the brown haze in LA, which is totally unnecessary since all the technology currently exists to build clean cars today. IF you don't live in California you should NOT have the right to tell us we must breath dirty air because you feel it is in your best interest to sell us sub-standard polluting vehicles. Enough already!

[Ms. Thoughtfully Opinionated]

Did you read that we are giving Exxon, one of the most profitable, if not THE most profitable corporation on the planet, $4 billion dollars in tax breaks??? Let's use THAT for clean energy instead. As the mother of two asthmatic kids, I'd happily celebrate cleaner air in California.

[Paul in Ohio]

"Scientific studies show that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are heating Earth's atmosphere and changing the climate."

You just turned this into an opinion piece.

[Bill W]

"However, the George W. Bush administration refused to grant California a waiver after it enacted a 2004 law to curb planet-heating carbon dioxide emissions from cars. "

Can you show your work on that? Show cause and effect?

The largest CO2 producer on earth is the Pacific Ocean. The rise in CO2 since 1947 is .003% (see that decimal point there?)

If the earth were so fragile it would have ended long ago.

You'd be hard pressed to grow fruit and veg without CO2.

[joinamerica]

"Americans can accomplish a great deal with "affordable conservation." And "a wealthy economy," he adds, "is better able to deal with the costs of greenhouse gas abatement than a poor economy." Since "large numbers" of countries are "unlikely to take aggressive action on greenhouse gas emissions," the "U.S. is going to have to decide, just as California is going to have to decide, if they want to go it alone. . . . Are they willing to place the burden on our economy and our consumers, at the expense of jobs?"

Meanwhile, alternative energy only supplies 1% of our energy needs, (and this is after many billions of our tax dollars have been poured into those technologies). And our unfunded liability to our public unions is trillions of dollars. (Every California family has a liability of $37,000 to pay for what is coming. )

One thing you cannot accuse Californians of is common sense.

[Ken McKenna]

Contrary to the headline, and the insinuation of the article itself, this decision did NOT uphold California's right to independently regulate carbon emmissions. The Appeals court ONLY held that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Automobile Dealers Assn. did not have legal standing in the case. Further, the court relied on the fact that California received a federal waiver. Nothing in this decision holds that California has the "right" the article claims was "upheld."

And there's a good reason for that. If the matter is squarely put to the federal courts by plaintiffs with standing, California would probably lose. Just a few days ago the Supreme Court signaled that it would throw out a huge global warming lawsuit brought by California and five other states that seeks limits on carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants in the South and Midwest. The justices said the problem of regulating greenhouse gases should be left to the FEDERAL Environmental Protection Agency.

It's hard to imagine how the Times could get the decision so wrong.

[imthepostman]

This is a victory for states' rights, which means (true) conservatives should be happy. But since this relates to environmental protection that's probably reason enough to whine and moan.

[syscom3]

In the mean time, 600 turtles are holding up a solar plant in the desert.

[unclesmrgol]

This is one place where the Commerce clause certainly applies -- a car legal in 49 other states ought to be legal in California too.

This one will certainly be seen by the Supreme Court.