Motor Vehicles Under CAA Flashcards
Section 202
- deals with new motor vehicles
- says Administrator shall proscribe standards for emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or engines which cause or contribute to air pollution which “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare”
Section 209
- Section 116 says no preemption of state law in CAA, but 209 is an exception to this
- states can’t be stricter on cars
- exception: Administrator can grant waivers if you adopted standards for new motor vehicles prior to March 30, 1966 (ie only Cali) + your standards will be at least as strict as gov’s -> in order to grant waiver, Administrator needs to make sure the determination of the state isn’t arbitrary and capricious and that state needs the standards to meet “compelling and extraordinary conditions”
Piggyback Provisions
- Section 177
- other states are allowed to adopt IDENTICAL standard to Cali standard for which waiver has been granted
California and GHG Waiver - Initial Application
- initially applied in 2005 (pre-Mass v. EPA)
- hurdle: Federal Preemption through the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (says state can’t adopt/enforce law or reg related to fuel economy standards or average fuel economy standards) -> fuel economy closely tied to GHG, so there’s a potential issue
Mass v. EPA
- looked at q of EPA under CAA vs. DOT authority under EPCA
- said overlapping authority but not inconsistent - just need to comply with most stringent one -> wind up with joint rulemaking between NHTSA and EPA
EPA 2007 Letter to Cali
- says will deny the waiver b/c Cali doesn’t have “need to meet compelling and extraordinary circumstances”
- based on fact that Cali unusual for some air pollution (mountains block certain pollutants + keep them concentrated) vs. doesn’t apply with GHGs (more fungible)
Obama Admin and Motor Vehicles -2009
- 2009
- tells EPA Admin to assess Cali’s waiver request -> July 2009 Cali gets waiver for GHGs
- Also promises tougher fuel efficiency standards federally (auto industry agreed to this because fed gov had just bailed them out)
Obama Admin - Grant of Cali Waiver
Compelling and extraordinary analysis -
- q of need for Cali’s program vs. need for GHG standards -> looks at Cali’s need for a stricter program as a whole rather than need for tighter GHG regs (in which respect harder to say Cali unique)
- Cali experiences some of the worst air quality in the nation
- climate change will exacerbate Cali’s problems (ozone, water resources, threatened and endangered species)
Cali winds up getting the waiver, but its standards = the Obama fed EPA and DOt motor vehicle standards
Obama MV Standards
- double fuel efficiency and halve CO2 pollution by 2025
- save $1.7 trillion in fuel costs
- fuel efficiency from 35.5 to 54.5 mpg between 2017 and 2025
- save 4 billion barrels oil 2017 to 2025
- reduce GHG emissions by 2 billion metric tons 2017 to 2025
- net societal benefits $326 billion to $451 billion 2017-2025
Trump - Cali Waiver
- denies Cali waiver
- EPCA preemption of Cali MV rules
- says relevant inquiry is whether Cali needs own MV GHG program to meet compelling and extraordinary circumstances, not whether needs own MV program overall
- Cali not extraordinary and compelling wrt GHGs because GHG concentrations globally uniform, not state-specific, and health and welfare impacts on CA of climate change not extraordinary to the state (no distinct geographic and wind patterns for GHGs)
Trump - Piggyback Provisions
Denies extensions to other states:
- Section 177 doesn’t apply to global air pollution
- Section 177 is part of the CAA nonattainment program, which pertains to ability of a state to meet NAAQSs within own border
- GHGs don’s pertain to state’s ability to meet NAAQSs within own borders
- agency interpretation of Section 177 comports with interpretation fo Section 209 (b)(1)(B0 as limiting waiver to pollutants that affect local or regional air quality and not global pollutants akin to GHGs
Obama vs. Trump MV GHG Rules
- Obama fuel efficiency improves 5% per year
- Trump fuel efficiency improves 1.5% per year
- Trump plan releases additional 1.5 billion metric tons GHGs - equivalent 68 coal-fired power plants
- advocates of Trump plan argue makes newer/safer cars b/c less costly + less driving b/c less fuel efficient (claim safes lives + prevents car accidents)
Union of Concerned Scientists v. NHTSA
- DC Cir
Challenged Trump decision to withdraw Cali waiver as unlawful: - once EPA has granted waiver, can’t withdraw (prof said tough to argue)
- unreasonable abandonment of “program level” approach for GHG pollutants that EPA historically used for other pollutants
- unreasonable determination Cali not have compelling, extraordinary reasons to regulate GHGs (need not be local, particularized + state-specific since not in stat lingo, ignores import of Section 177 piggyback, “need” doesnt require meaningful redress, Cali especially climate challenged)
- cannot base waiver denial on erroneous NHTSA presumption rationale
- also argues the Section 177 determination unlawful + also challenged the Trump NHTSA preemption rule
Union of Concerned Scientists v. NHTSA - Preemption
NHTSA preemption rule unlawful b/c:
- NHTSA lacks authority to issue preemption rules - de novo review
- NHTSA can’t preempt state standards authorized under CAA - once approved they have federal status
- no necessary and inevitable relationship between GHG emission standards and fuel efficiency
- NHTSA can’t preempt zero emission vehicles, no mathematical relationship to fuel economy
Biden Admin MV
- revisits all the Trump stuff
- reconsiders the Cali waiver
- EPA proposes rule to revise the Trump admin rules -> impose more stringent GHG emissions standards -> final rule Dec 2021
- NHTSA proposes rule to revise Trump rules and impose more stringent fuel econ standards
