AzMotorNews.com
Ca.
Carmakers May Test New Law Reducing Greenhouse
Gasses
By Miguel Bustillo and John O'Dell for the L.A.Times,
12-7-04
===================================
Los
Angeles Times
Carmakers May Test Exhaust Law
Companies prepare suit that would challenge California's
authority to force them to reduce emissions linked to global warming.
By Miguel Bustillo and John O'Dell
L.A.Times Staff Writers, 12-7-04
Automobile manufacturers are preparing to sue
California, perhaps as early as this week, in an attempt to derail a
pioneering state law that seeks to force the companies to reduce tailpipe
emissions of heat-trapping gases linked to global warming.
Representatives of two major automakers confirmed Monday that a coalition of
companies has decided to file a lawsuit that would challenge the state's legal
authority to force the reductions from carmakers.
One company official from a domestic automaker who had been briefed on the
lawsuit described it as "imminent." However, a representative of a Japanese
automaker cautioned that the suit may not be filed until January.
Car companies and an automobile industry trade group repeatedly have argued
that the California law — which requires a nearly 30% cut in
greenhouse gas emissions from all passenger vehicles sold in the state by 2016
— sets a new fuel efficiency standard, which only the federal government has
the power to do.
The easiest known way to reduce exhaust of carbon dioxide and other
heat-trapping gases is to build cars and trucks that burn less fuel. State
officials concede that the new rule probably will lead to more fuel-efficient
cars and trucks elsewhere.
Still, the rule-makers maintain that they are regulating only air pollution,
not fuel economy, as the auto industry contends.
A spokeswoman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers,
a trade group of leading carmakers that includes General Motors,
Toyota and Volkswagen, said the group was still
deciding whether to sue.
"We are still considering our options and I am not going to predict when and
if we might do something," said spokeswoman Gloria Bergquist.
State officials said they hoped to avert a legal dispute.
"We hope that we and the automakers can work out our differences and find some
common ground," said California Air Resources Board
spokesman Jerry Martin. "We have been doing our best to work with them in
hopes of avoiding a lawsuit."
Environmental groups said they hoped that automakers, some of which have tried
to cultivate a "greener" image in recent years, would consider polls in
California showing that the public supports the greenhouse gas rule. But they
acknowledged that they expected a legal showdown.
"They can choose whether to innovate or litigate. We were
hoping that leaders in that industry would recognize that the public wants
cleaner cars. But it looks as if they are choosing to draw a hard line in
California," said David Doniger, a senior attorney at the Natural
Resources Defense Council and head of a legal team of
environmentalists that plans to help defend the rule.
The first regulation of its kind in the world, California's greenhouse gas
rule is being closely watched around the globe. A number of states, including
New York, Massachusetts and New Jersey, have indicated that they would like to
adopt similar regulations. Canada also has discussed developing a similar
standard modeled in part on the California requirement. As a result, auto
industry experts said, the state rule could lead to major changes in cars sold
throughout North America.
The technology needed to reduce tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases already
exists and is in use in many cars. State officials have cited innovations
currently in use that can reduce exhaust, including continuously variable
transmissions that shift to find the most efficient gear, engines that shut
off cylinders when they are not needed and air-conditioning systems that use
alternative coolants.
However, the technology costs more, and requiring it on all California cars
and trucks will undoubtedly raise prices.
State officials estimate that the average
car would cost about $1,000 more by the time the rule is fully implemented in
2016.
Car company representatives estimated that
the increase would be three times that.
David Cole, chairman of the nonprofit Center for Automotive
Research in Ann Arbor, Mich., said car companies were worried
that tougher requirements would force them to build vehicles with smaller
engines that were less able to tow trailers and boats. Cole and other
automotive industry experts said the expected filing of the suit should lead
to more frank talks between California and automakers, which have largely
avoided discussing their differences with state regulators.
"The car companies see this as an unfair tax on their consumers because it
will add to the cost of vehicles and detract from the utility that consumers
have come to expect," Cole said.
In addition to arguing that California is attempting to set a new fuel-economy
standard, car companies have maintained that the state is overstepping its
legal authority by regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
Under the Clean Air Act, California is the only state that can set
air pollution standards stronger than those imposed by the federal government.
Other states are then free to follow California's standards. Many have done
so.
However, the Bush administration ruled last year that it did not
consider carbon dioxide a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.
A number of states, including California, have
challenged the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency decision in court.
State officials also maintain that they can regulate carbon dioxide
even if the federal government chooses not to do so.
*Link to the original article at:
****
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use
without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for non-profit research and educational
purposes only.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------