California Wins Emissions Battle with Automakers
Environmental
California won a major legal battle Wednesday in its fight to implement a global-warming law that would lead to steep increases in motor vehicle fuel economy.
A federal judge in Fresno tossed out a lawsuit filed by the world's major automakers that tried to overturn AB 1493, a law that requires a 30 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2016.
The automakers had said the law was unconstitutional because it mandated a big jump in mileage standards - a matter that is under the authority of the U.S. Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. They further argued that the California standards would raise vehicle prices by as much as $6,000 per vhicle, leading to fewer sales and tens of thousands of auto-plant layoffs.
But U.S. District Judge Anthony Ishii rejected those claims, ruling that the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and arresting climate change must go forward.
The judge's decision doesn't mean the law automatically takes effect. California still needs a waiver from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to implement AB 1493.
Last month the state sued the EPA to force a decision on its waiver request. On Wednesday EPA spokeswoman Jennifer Wood said the federal agency will rule on the request by the end of December. If the EPA turns down California's request, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and other state officials have vowed to sue the government again.
The Fresno decision came as climatologists and policymakers, including many from California, convened in Bali, Indonesia, to hammer out a worldwide treaty on curbing greenhouse gas emissions.
State officials and environmentalists have said AB 1493 can be implemented using largely off-the-shelf technology. They say the additional cost per vehicle is probably no more than $1,800.
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, responding to the decision, continued to criticize the California law, saying, "We need a consistent national policy for fuel economy, and this nationwide policy cannot be written by a single state or group of states - only by the fedeal government."
The alliance noted that leaders of Congress, working on a new federal energy bill, recently agreed to raise fuel economy standards for all vehicles from an average 25.3 mpg to 35 mpg by 2020. The bill has passed the House but not the Senate, and may run aground because of issues not related to fuel economy.
The judge's decision was greatly influenced by two earlier court cases. Last spring the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the federal EPA had the duty to regulate greenhouse gases. More recently, a federal judge in Vermont threw out the automakers' lawsuit over a copycat law.
Vermont is one of 11 states that have adopted California's standards; five others are considering doing so. But all are on hold pending the EPA's decision on California's waiver request.
Environmentalists hailed Judge Ishii's ruling. "We keep winning," said David Bookbinder, a lawyer with the Sierra Club, which participated in the case. "The courts are simply not buying (the automakers') arguments."
He said he wouldn't be surprised if the automakers file an appeal, adding: "Sooner or later they're going to have to stop throwing lawyers at the problem and start hiring engineers."
Related listings
-
Nixon Peabody Names First Sustainability Officer
Environmental 11/14/2007The Legal Newswire - International law firm Nixon Peabody LLP announces the appointment of a Chief Sustainability Officer. Carolyn S. Kaplan, an attorney in the firm’s energy and environmental practice, will serve in the new role. Nixon Peabody is th...
-
California to Sue Over Auto Emissions
Environmental 10/23/2007[##_1L|1048905051.jpg|width="90" height="119" alt=""|_##]The state's attorney general said Monday that he would sue the Environmental Protection Agency in an attempt to force it to decide whether to let California and 11 other states impose stricter ...
-
America Pipeline Company Pleads Guilty
Environmental 09/05/2007[##_1L|1201928483.jpg|width="180" height="128" alt=""|_##]America Pipeline Company has pleaded guilty to negligently releasing about 200,000 gallons of ammonia into a Kansas creek. Authorities say the incident resulted in the killing of more than 25,...
Illinois Work Injury Lawyers – Krol, Bongiorno & Given, LTD.
Accidents in the workplace are often caused by unsafe work conditions arising from ignoring safety rules, overlooking maintenance or other negligence of those in management. While we are one of the largest firms in Illinois dedicated solely to the representation of injured workers, we pride ourselves on the personal, one-on-one approach we deliver to each client.
Work accidents can cause serious injuries and sometimes permanent damage. Some extremely serious work injuries can permanently hinder a person’s ability to get around and continue their daily duties. Factors that affect one’s quality of life such as place of work, relationships with friends and family, and social standing can all be taken away quickly by a work injury. Although, you may not be able to recover all of your losses, you may be entitled to compensation as a result of your work injury. Krol, Bongiorno & Given, LTD. provides informed advocacy in all kinds of workers’ compensation claims, including:
• Injuries to the back and neck, including severe spinal cord injuries
• Serious head injuries
• Heart problems resulting from workplace activities
• Injuries to the knees, elbows, shoulders and other joints
• Injuries caused by repetitive movements
For Illinois Workers’ Compensation claims, you will ALWAYS cheat yourself if you do not hire an experienced attorney. When you hire Krol, Bongiorno & Given, Ltd, you will have someone to guide you through the process, and when it is time to settle, we will add value to your case IN EXCESS of our fee. In the last few years, employers and insurance carriers have sought to advance the argument that when you settle a case without an attorney, your already low settlement should be further reduced by 20% so that you do not get a “windfall.” Representing yourself in Illinois is a lose-lose proposition.