Judge favors state over automakers
Toolbox
By Louis Porter Vermont Press Bureau - Published: September 13, 2007
U.S. District Court Judge William Sessions delivered a stunning blow to auto manufacturing companies Wednesday, establishing the right of states to set their own standards for how much green house gas emissions cars could produce – and pushing Vermont again to the forefront in a national fight over who regulates such pollutants.
Sessions ruled in favor of the state and its allies on nearly every point in his more than 240 page decision in a case that pitted car makers and dealers against Vermont regulators and environmentalists.
Even as they were celebrating, however, the defendants said they would be surprised if the matter – either through the Vermont case or one of two other similar cases in other states – did not eventually wind up before the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.
The heart of the case was the question of whether Vermont's tough emissions standards, based on those established in California, were a legitimate use of the state's power under the federal Clean Air Act, or a backdoor way to take over the federal government's role of setting efficiency standards, as car makers claimed.
Saying the two levels of regulation do not conflict with each other, Sessions ruled in favor of the state on several counts and dismissed others.
"It's great to have a 244 page decision in which we win on all counts," said Attorney General William Sorrell, whose office defended the state emissions standards. "This was a slam dunk for us."
Officials for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a lead plaintiff in the case, declined to say much by telephone or e-mail beyond an official statement from Dave McCurdy, the organization's chief executive.
"It makes sense that only the federal government can regulate fuel economy. Automakers support improving fuel economy standards nationally rather than piecemeal," McCurdy said in his statement.
The emissions limits, which would require as much as a 30 percent reduction in the production of carbon dioxide from cars by 2016 according to a federal review of the California standards, were the subject of a more than two-week long trial earlier this year in Burlington.
The auto manufacturers argued that technology did not exist to allow them to comply with the Vermont standards. It's not the first time they have cried wolf that way, Sessions implied.
"Policy makers have used the regulatory process to prompt automakers to develop and employ new, state-of-the-art technologies, more often than not over the industry's objections. The introduction of catalytic converters in the 1970s is just one example," Sessions wrote in his decision. "In each case the industry responded with technological advancements designed to meet the challenges."
Vermont may have scored a major victory with Sessions' decision, but the matter is far from over.
"There are a lot of court fights to go here," Sorrell said. "I would be surprised if the U.S. Supreme Court didn't make the ultimate call."
Whether the appeals court, and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court justices, hear the case against Vermont or not remains to be seen.
Nearly a dozen states have adopted their own emissions standards and there are two pending lawsuits by car makers over the matter, in California and Rhode Island. The other two cases were put on hold pending a decision in a related case between Massachusetts and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Sessions, on the other hand, made the unusual decision to push ahead with a full review and trial of the Vermont case, incorporating the subsequent decision in the EPA case into his ruling. Those decisions – and Sessions' ruling Wednesday – could vault Vermont to the forefront of the debate over whether states can regulate global warming gas pollution.
Charles Territo, a spokesman for the organization, declined to elaborate on whether the group would appeal Sessions' ruling.
"The Alliance will continue studying the decision and considering the options, including an appeal," he said.
"We would encourage them not to appeal this ruling. The ruling is clear and they should stop litigating and start cleaning up their fleets," said Christopher Kilian of the Conservation Law Foundation, one of the environmental organizations that rallied to assist the state of Vermont in the case. "The auto industry should be assisting Vermont in getting that done, not sitting back and fighting efforts that will begin to reduce climate pollutants."
Principles of the Vermont car dealers who joined the alliance and individual auto manufacturing firms like General Motors in the case were unavailable for comment Wednesday afternoon.
Whether the case will ultimately mean new cars sold in Vermont will put out fewer greenhouse gases is unclear. The states would have to get an EPA waiver – something California has already applied for. The alliance of cars makers said they would work to ensure the EPA's decision is "based on credible, sound scientific data." Meanwhile the federal government may implement stricter CAFE, or Corporate Average Fuel Economy, standards.
But the Sessions decision is still very important because it may help reaffirm the right of states to set their own rules in such matters, said Steve Hinchman, a staff attorney for CLF who worked on the case.
"This is a major rebuke to the national auto makers for attempting to avoid any responsibility to curb global warming emissions from their cars and trucks," Hinchman said. "The states have always been authorized to regulate green house gas emissions, the same as particulates from diesel."
It is also an important ruling because, at least recently, states are taking up the slack in environmental regulation left by a lax federal government, Sorrell said.
"When Washington takes more of a hands-off attitude under our system of government the states are able to step up and lead the way," he said. "Under the Bush administration on a range of environmental issues leadership has had to come from the states. Vermont and a number of other states have been willing to step up and exercise our authority."
James Moore, an advocate for the environmental group Vermont Public Interest Research Group, agreed.
"As our federal government has turned a blind eye to the climate crisis states like Vermont are forced to take the lead and today Judge Sessions has protected our right to do so," Moore said in a statement.
The ruling is also important because the bulk of Vermont's greenhouse gas emissions come from vehicles, Gov. James Douglas said.
"Most of Vermont's greenhouse gases are emitted by automobiles and for us to make significantly reduce our carbon footprint the innovations that occur in states like Vermont are critical," Douglas said in a statement.
Sessions' decision was also welcome after a recent decision that the state must pay $1.4 million in legal fees for its opponents in a federal campaign finance law case which Vermont lost, Sorrell said.
"That was a bit of a bitter pill to swallow," said Sorrell. "This is ten pills and they all taste great."
42