Question

Respond fully to the following fact pattern and the questions that follow. Identify and discuss the relevant legal and ethical issues presented. You may want to do some outside reading/ research to help you in formulating your answer. Be sure to cite your sources as needed (this does not include the Clarkson et al. text – I assume you will use it. However, if you quote the Clarkson et al. text directly, be sure to identify it as a quote and cite the page).

Your response should be approximately 750 words (2.5 to 3 pages in length). Please use Times New Roman 12 pt. font and standard margins (this makes it easier). Be sure to include your name, course and section number on the first page of your submission. This project MUST be submitted via blackboard no email submissions will be accepted. Use Microsoft Word or some compatible software and submit by 11:59 p.m. on Sunday, October 28, 2018

Fact Pattern

In the Clean Air Act as amended, Congress allowed California, which has serious problems with air quality, to adopt its own standards for emissions from cars and trucks, subject to the approval of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) according to certain standards. The Act also allowed other states to adopt California’s standards after EPA approval.

In 2004, California adopted emissions standards for all new passenger vehicles and light- duty trucks sold in California beginning in 2009. The standards imposed decreasing limits on emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHG) through 2016.

While EPA approval was pending, other states adopted the California standards. A group of industry associations, automakers, and new car dealerships filed suit to block state adoption of the standards (including California).

(a) Under the Environmental Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), a designated federal agency sets fuel economy standards for new cars. The plaintiffs argued, among other things, that the EPCA, which explicitly prohibits states from adopting separate fuel economy standards, preempts states from adopting their own emission standards. Is the plaintiffs’ argument valid? Discuss.

(b) Do the state emissions rules impose on the efforts of the federal government to address global warming internationally? Who should regulate GHGs, the states or the federal government? Both? Neither? Discuss.

(c) The plaintiffs also argued that they would go bankrupt if they were forced to adhere to a different GHG standard for each state. Should they be granted relief on this basis? Does history support their claim? Discuss.

This is a Business Law course! I am not particularly interested in reading treatises on libertarianism or environmentalism – I want you to think critically about the trade-offs between business and the environment, and comment on the legal and ethical issues that are presented above.

Answer 1

1. Yes, the plaintiffs’ argument is valid because of the cross-movement for outline judgment, emphasize their conflict that California's AB 1493 Regulations. In the uninterrupted supply of a waiver of acquisition under the Clean Air Act, turn into an "other engine vehicle standard of the administration" which DOT will be required to calculate the detailing of further mileage norms in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 32902(f), and, in that capacity, won't be liable to acquisition by suggestion. Respondents likewise emphasize their dispute that Congress did not expect that EPCA's seizure procurement ought to bar authorization of California's AB 1493 Regulations if and at the point when those controls are conceded waiver of acquisition under area 209 of the Clean Air Act. Respondents ask for as a feature of their cross motion for rundown judgment on AIAM's claim for EPCA seizure that this court reevaluates its property despite what might be expected contained in the September 25 Order. The court's January 16 Order stayed procedures according to Defendants' movement to anticipate the foreseen choice of the Supreme Court in Massachusetts. The activity in Massachusetts emerged as an aftereffect of the dissent by EPA of a tenet making an appeal for the benefit of a few states and various natural associations that asked EPA "to control 'nursery gas discharges from new engine vehicles under § 202 of the Clean Air Act(CENTRAL VALLEY CHRYSLER JEEP).
2. According to my perspective, to the state emissions rules impose on the efforts of the federal government to regulate global warming worldwide. The CleanAir Act struck a bargain between the two extremes on tailpipe vehicle models. Vesting selective power in the government to control tailpipe outflows could prompt inert strategies. Then again, permitting every one of the 50 states to regulate exhaust discharges would bring about massive inefficiencies for vehicles makers and buyers. By constraining to two the quantity of various administrative norms the automakers must meet, Congress struck a harmony amongst state and government power. The result is an arrangement that protected the capacity for states to develop and goad government activity. By sanctioning certain critical national grapple programs that safeguard the states' ability to establish methods more stringent than the selected projects, the government will be accomplishing noteworthy decreases through approaches that bode well at a state level. The remaining strategies in different regions are then left for the states to create as proper. Through the state environmental change alleviation arranging process, states could gather an arrangement of methods and measures over all regions, including vitality proficiency, low-carbon and renewable powers, transportation and area use agreements, agribusiness, ranger service, and waste lessening standards(Franz T. Litz).
3. The court's September 25 Order tended to Defendants' movement for judgment on the pleadings as per Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The September 25 Order considered and dismissed contentions progressed from Defendants to bolster their general conflict that Congress planned to allow California to control carbon dioxide outflows paying little respect to the effect of those directions on fuel productivity models under EPCA. To start with, the court rejected Defendants' dispute that the gift of a waiver of seizure under segment 209 of the Clean Air Act vaccinates to any degree a state control from a seizure challenge under EPCA. The court's September 25 Order additionally considered and rejected Defendants' dispute that EPCA's commitment to consider "the impact of other Federal engine vehicle norms on mileage" as per 49 U.S.C. § 32902(f) does not show a congressional expectation to permit state controls to encroach on EPCA's current structure or objectives. The court reasoned that the statutory obligation to consider a component does not require that EPCA orchestrates its goals or directions with those of a state control that has been conceded a waiver of seizure under the Clean Air Act. The court held that "the dialect of area 32902(f) just requires NHTSA to research and dissect what impact "alternate" directions will have on efficiency(CENTRAL VALLEY CHRYSLER JEEP).

References

CENTRAL VALLEY CHRYSLER JEEP, I. (n.d.). IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.

Franz T. Litz, E. (n.d.). TOWARD A CONSTRUCTIVE DIALOGUE ON FEDERAL AND STATE ROLES IN U.S. CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY.

KINDLY RATE THE ANSWER AS THUMBS UP. THANKS A LOT.