Complain about a product or service

Critics: New Federal Gas Mileage Standard Falls Short

California, Public Citizen castigate Bush, Congress

By Joe Benton
ConsumerAffairs.com

April 23, 2008
California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. has attacked the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s new fuel economy rules, calling them “a covert assault” on his state’s landmark tailpipe greenhouse gas regulations.

“This fuel economy plan, while attractive on the surface, is a shameful and unlawful assault on California’s landmark vehicle emissions standards,” Brown said.

The rules also came under assault from Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook.

"Given the Bush administration’s abysmal record on consumer and environmental issues, the last thing anyone would expect is that it would do more than the bare minimum," she said.

Last year, the Bush administration had ordered a one mile per gallon increase for light trucks from 22 to 23 miles per gallon by 2010, which Brown challenged in court, asserting that the plan failed to consider the effects of greenhouse gas emissions.

A 9th Circuit decision issued in November struck down the inadequate national standard and directed the federal government to come up with a new plan.

The latest vehicle standard, an increase to 31.6 miles per gallon by 2015, falls short of state efforts that curb greenhouse gas emissions directly and are estimated to be equivalent to 36 miles per gallon by 2016.

The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) required the Bush Administration to increase gas mileage standards. But in the newest regulations, buried on page 378, there is an attempt -- in violation of law, according to Brown -- to ignore the Supreme Court’s ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA and two district court opinions that affirm that gas mileage standards are separate from state greenhouse gas regulations.

Preemption challenged

The regulations purport to preempt "any state regulation regulating tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles...,” said the attorney general. This violates legal precedent that clearly established that pollution emissions from cars, including greenhouse gases, are regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the State of California, not NHTSA.

The preemption provisions clearly contradict language in the original EISA statue itself, which states that nothing in the law, “supersedes, limits the authority provided or responsibility conferred by, or authorizes any violation of any provision of law (including a regulation), including any energy or environmental law or regulation.”

Under the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency and California both have authority to regulate motor vehicle pollution, including greenhouse gases. Individual states may then choose to adopt the California or federal standards.

The Bush Administration argued that neither the EPA nor California had that authority, but it lost that argument last year when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Clean Air Act applies to greenhouse gases and that NHTSA’s mileage standard authority must be coordinated with greenhouse gas emissions controls under the Clean Air Act.

Two federal district courts, Vermont and the Eastern District of California, determined that California’s authority to control greenhouse gas emissions cannot be overruled by NHTSA.

California’s law requires a 30 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions standards from motor vehicles by 2016. Under the Clean Air Act, California can adopt stricter standards by obtaining a waiver from EPA.

California is the world’s 12th largest producer of greenhouse gas emissions and the state’s auto regulations are an important part of California’s strategy to fight global warming. The regulations would account for about 17 percent of the state’s goal, set under AB 32 the Global Warming Solutions Act, of reducing emissions 25 percent by 2020.

Seventeen other states have adopted or are poised to adopt California's landmark regulations: Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Washington

Congress caved

In her statement, Claybrook also castigated Congress, which she said "caved in to automaker pressure and set a weak target of 35 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2020 for the combined fleets, which is far less than automakers could and should be achieving."

In fact, the 31.6 mpg that the combined fleets must reach by 2015 under the new proposal is just more proof that these targets are insufficient, she said. Other countries already have set targets that exceed the U.S. 2020 goal - Japan requires more than 35 mpg by 2010; the European Union is ramping up to as much as 52 mpg by 2012; and even China will require 38 mpg for 2008.

"Gas prices are out of control and rising," Claybrook said. "Most Americans have no choice but to drive to get to work, buy groceries, take their kids to school and perform the basic tasks of everyday living. This new proposal is not the aggressive, forward-looking policy that consumers need, and it is years behind."

Report Your Experience
If you've had a bad experience -- or a good one -- with a consumer product or service, we'd like to hear about it. All complaints are reviewed by class action attorneys and are considered for publication on our site. Knowledge is power! Help spread the word. File your consumer report now.

Share		Follow us on Twitter.

Back to the top |