California fights EPA for cleaner, gas-saving cars

Congress recently required cars to get about 40-percent better fuel economy by 2020, or about 35 mpg on average. But California and 17 other states think that isn't enough. In an effort they say is aimed at reducing global warming, these states want to require cars sold there to get more than 39 mpg in the same timeframe.

The federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is blocking that effort. In a letter released February 29th, the agency offered an explanation, saying that global warming isn't unique to California, so the state cannot take unique steps to solve the problem. (Likewise, the White House blocked a national move by the EPA, according to this Detroit News report.)

Now the two groups look set to slug it out in court until next fall, according to a group of California advocates responding to the EPA decision. At issue is whether a 2005 California law limiting the amount of carbon dioxide cars could produce is designed to limit emissions or fuel economy.

Reducing the potential global-warming impacting  emissions from cars has a direct impact on fuel economy. While other vehicle emissions can be chemically treated in the engine and exhaust, the only way to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions is simply to burn less fuel.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB), which normally regulates smog-forming pollution such as oxides of nitrogen (NOx),  hydrocarbons (HCs), and carbon monoxide (CO) developed the law in 2004, and the state legislature passed it in September 2005.

California has a long history of setting its own emissions standards for cars. Under the Clean Air Act in 1970, California was allowed to set its own emissions standards, because it had the worst air pollution in the nation and because it already had its own emissions regulations before the federal law was passed. Other states may choose to follow either federal or California laws. But to avoid a patchwork of different laws in all 50 states, they are not allowed to write their own. Before California can adopt its own laws, however, it has to get a waiver from the EPA. The denial of that waiver gave rise to the current dispute. The state had never been denied a waiver before.

The current lawsuit follows two years of wrangling, in which automakers sued the state over the CO2 restriction and lost in a Vermont court. At the same time, California, along with environmental groups, sued the EPA saying it should regulate carbon dioxide. In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that CO2 is a pollutant and the EPA should regulate it. Several other suits regarding the standard are being litigated simultaneously.

So far 12 other states have signed on to follow California standards: Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. Together they represent 36 percent of the U.S. population.

In reading the EPA's explanation of its waiver denial and talking to the federal agencies involved, higher fuel economy requirements resulting from the CO2 standard in the 13 states that follow California's rules could have the unintended consequence of lowering gas mileage requirements in the rest of the country. For example, if vehicles nationwide had to average 35 mpg, and vehicles in the 13 "California states" had to average 39 mpg, cars in other 37 states could theoretically average less than 35 mpg. The cars sold in the California states would still raise the national average to 35 mpg.

According to spokespeople at the federal agencies that would be involved, this concern has not been addressed, because officially California does not have a waiver to pass its CO2 limits for cars. Still, should the state prevail, it seems like a serious concern, one that officials confide they would need to resolve.

Roland Hwang, vehicles policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and an advocate of California's program, responds that the program will force automakers to develop more fuel-saving technology than the national program. And he says once they put that technology on some cars, there is a "tipping point," where manufacturers won't be willing to make different vehicles for different markets.

The NRDC claims that five more states are in the process of adopting California's emissions standards and they would push the total over that tipping point, representing more than 45 percent of new U.S. car sales.

In the end, the prospect of $4-a-gallon gas may have more impact on getting consumers to buy more efficient vehicles than either the federal or California regulations. In Europe, where consumers drive more smaller cars, those consumers pay higher taxes every year on cars that get lower fuel economy. Dramatically higher fuel prices also play a big role.

Overall, getting better fuel economy seems like a good thing on multiple fronts. But if California's law were approved, would that actually result in higher fuel economy? Should the EPA grant California a waiver to require higher fuel economy than the rest of the nation? And is raising fuel economy standards in the name of reducing global warming justifiable? Let us know what you think. We're looking forward to reading your answers.

—Eric Evarts

Learn more about fuel efficiency and hybrid cars in our Fuel Economy special section.

Comments

[44 mpg (in the US) by 2010]

"... the unintended consequence of lowering gas mileage requirements in the rest of the country. For example, if vehicles nationwide had to average 35 mpg, and vehicles in the 13 "California states" had to average 39 mpg, cars in other 37 states could theoretically average less than 35 mpg. The cars sold in the California states would still raise the national average to 35 mpg."

IF the Det3 and other auto manufacturers develop and sell two DIFFERENT classes of fuel economy vehicles based on state in which the vehicle is sold .... the question becomes why?

I guess then another "unintended consequence" is that the consumer will have to decide which state from which to buy his vehicle.

This is not to suggest that everyone should have to buy very high mpg machines!

Here is a new thought ... IF low mpg high performance vehicles are REALLY in such high demand ... the auto companies COULD raise their prices to increase the profit margins on that class of vehicle.

[Crispin Pierce]

There are many reasons that California should be allowed to set greenhouse gas emission standards: 1) The Supreme Court has ruled that CO2 is a pollutant that must be regulated; 2) California, like other coastal states, is being particularly affected by climate change through sea level rise; and 3) EPA waivers for California emissions have led to cleaner air nationwide.

I'm often frustrated at the myopic view that CR takes on the costs of consumption, and the article by Mr. Evarts illustrates this well. Air pollution from CO2 emissions causes climate change, which in turn causes disease spread, heat deaths, lung cancer, lung disease, water pollution, crop losses and insurance cost increases. While sometimes difficult to estimate, these costs should be included in CR's analyses of the best bang for the buck, be it lawn mowers, TV sets, or fuel economy.

[Ken Merunski]

Mpg? Well, just across the border in Canada is a vehicle that has been running around for the past 3-4 years averaging 60-70 real life mpg...the Smart CDI (diesel). But, because it can't meet the new Tier 2 Bin 5 requirements for NMOG, CO, NOx, and NMOG, it is not allowed in the ol' US of A. You'd think that a vehicle that gets more than 3X (yes, 3X!!!) the national average of miles per gallon would get an exemption.

Imagine what the country would be like if a third of the vehicles running around were Smart CDI types. Maybe an oil glut on the market to drive the price down?

Now, if Honda really does have this promising exhaust system that I've been reading about for diesels to make them as clean if not cleaner than todays gasoline engines...would Mercedes Benz be humble enough to ask to buy the right to use that exhaust on the Smart CDI? Ooooh, what a car!!!

[Soyarma]

I think that we are not far from the general population finally realizing that we need true alternative fuels. By 2010 we'll most likely be looking at $5/gallon (or thereabouts) and people and smart corporations will move toward real solutions, not these half-measures.

[Frank]

Why only 35 to 39 mpg? Why not build autos and light trucks to actually achieve power and fuel economy of 50 mpg and above? It is not that difficult. An American transfer truck achieves 6 mpg while hauling significant weight. However, the majority of the U.S. population must feel significant pain at the pump before even considering such an improvement.

[Frank]

There are a lot of viable solutions out there. People have to feel real pain at the pump before they will wake up.