California is flexing its muscle. It is now suing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for preventing it from strengthening its standards for tailpipe emissions in cars.

It's a classic case of whether federal laws should supersede those of the states when the two come into conflict. Typically, conservatives prefer to give localities greater say as they are the ones closer to the communities that will be regulated while liberals tend to like centralized power at the federal level. In this latest test, the opposite is occurring. So, California officials have vowed to challenge the Bush administration's ruling in the federal courts to forge ahead with its tougher air pollution rules.

In 2002, California passed its Clean Car law that requires vehicles sold there to release 30 percent less greenhouse gases by 2016 -- a move that the state says will require cars to get 36.8 miles to the gallon by that time. That's a stricter standard than the federal law just passed, which requires fuel economy averages of 35 miles-per-gallon by 2020. It's all part of a strategy to combat greenhouse gas emissions in cars and light trucks, which are responsible for 16 percent of all those pollutants.

Since 1967, the federal code has allowed federal agenies the power to grant waivers to states seeking to deviate from federal law. This time, however, EPA rejected the request, saying that the energy law passed in December applies to all 50 states.

Specifically, the California Air Resources Board says that its fuel economy standards would cut annual carbon dioxide emissions by more than 32 million tons by 2020. That's compared to the nearly 19 million tons under the new federal law. Altogether, the 17 combined states -- most of the Northeast, Northwest, Florida and Colorado -- that seek to enact the tougher rules make up about 139 million people.

"The Bush administration is moving forward with a clear national solution -- not a confusing patchwork of state rules," EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson told reporters. "I believe this is a better approach than if individual states were to act alone." It's a move backed by the auto industry that has argued vociferously that an incongruent rules across state lines ultimately accrue to the expense of consumers.

"[EPA officials] are ignoring the will of millions of people who want their government to take action in the fight against global warming," counters Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. "That's why, at the very first legal opportunity, we're suing to reverse the U.S. EPA's wrong decision." California is, in fact, appealing EPA's decision and has said it will proceed with its tailpipe emissions laws that are to begin on all 2009 models.

Fundamental Shift

California Attorney General Jerry Brown has filed a suit in San Francisco-based 9th Circuit, which in the past has sided with the state's positions. But legal analysts expect the Bush administration to request a change of venue and to a more conservative appeals court in Washington, D.C.

In arguing its case, California will assuredly rely on three prior court rulings, the first of which was handed down by a federal appeals court in Fresno, Calif., in December as well as a recent and similar decision in a Vermont appeals court. In both those trials, auto makers said that federal fuel economy standards were paramount and that such rules pre-empted state laws. The other major case that California will cite will be the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing the EPA to regulate heat trapping emissions.

"Given the level of impairment of human health and welfare that current climate science indicates may occur if human-generated greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated, it would be the very definition of folly if EPA were precluded from action.," wrote Judge Anthony Ishii in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in Fresno. In September 2007, a federal district court judge in Vermont came to a similar conclusion.

The California case may ultimately be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has recently handed down some key victories for the environmental community. Key among them is an April 2007 decision in which the High Court said that gases that cause global warming are pollutants that can be regulated under the Clean Air Act by the EPA.

California's law does not just regulate gasoline. It also oversees other greenhouse gas emissions that emanate from refrigerants and alternative fuels. The state's goal is to cut such releases by 80 percent by 2050, which is the amount that many experts say is necessary to avoid the worst possible implications posed by global warming.

While the 17 states that would enact tailpipe emissions regulations that are stronger than federal laws are comprised of lawmakers from both parties, it is unlikely that they could collectively propose legislation to override EPA's ruling that could sustain a presidential veto. Proponents therefore have two options: Wait and see which party occupies the White House next year or pursue their case in the federal court system.

"The Supreme Court told EPA it has to take action on global warming," says California Air Resources Board Chair Mary Nichols, in a public proclamation and whose agency asked EPA for the waiver in 2005. "It affects our health and our environment. It's not just about fuel economy."

The whole matter falls under the broad category of whether state laws may trump federal standards and if so, under what circumstances. But in arguing their cases, both sides are missing an even more profound point -- one that signifies a fundamental shift in American energy and environmental policy. Not too long ago, intransigence persisted. Today, all stakeholders are taking more definitive actions to curtail global warming.



 

Copyright © 1996-2006 by CyberTech, Inc. All rights reserved.