Question

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.

Answer 1

(a) On the basis of the brief fact pattern presented in the question, the fundamental legislative act on which the erstwhile verdict of the Congress is based on is the Clean Air Act which has been amended to officially implement and legalize the concerned policy change. The amendment of the Clean Air Act which basically provides the judicial and legal authority to California to officially implement its own autonomous emmision standards and mandates which is subject to the approval Environmental Protection Agency(EPA). Therefore, the concerned policy change implemented by the Congress is essentially based on the corresponding ammendement of the Clear Air Act and the EPA and does not directly or legally concerns or involves the Envrionmental Policy and Conservation Act(EPCA) and hence, as California and other states set emission standards for new passenger cars, it legally pertains to the officially ammended Clean Air Act and the EPA. The main regulatory authority, in this case is the EPA which would approve any subsequently adjustments or changes of the emission standards adopted by the individual states, mainly California. Therefore, in this argument, it would be legally unjustifiable for the plaintiffs or the respective industry stakeholders or entities to cite EPCA, in this instance. However, if such environmental or emission policy implemented by the respective states is legally disapproved by the EPA on grounds of unauthorized manipulation of the concerned legal and environmental mandates and stipulations, then the appeal or the argument of the plaintiffs can be legally validated, on the basis of the contextual relevance of the concerned court case.

(b) In this context, the state emission standards and rules fundamentally pertain to the internal or domestic emission and pollution standards within the geographical boundaries of the United States and hence, any matter pertaining to the international standards of greenhouse gas emission and pollution mandates is beyond the legal or judicial jurisdiction of the federal government in the US on the basis of the emission standards and mandates at the state level. However, given the severity of greenhouse gas emission and its active role in the universal intensity of the global warming, it should be considered as a moral or ethical responsibility of both the state and the federal governments to collectively and actively intervene in mandating or regulating the standards on greenhouse gas emissions, which would expectedly reduce or control the overall emission level from an overall national perspective. Therefore, the global urgency and importance of the concerned matter require a combined effort or participation of both federal and state governments to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions at the national level.

(c) From a business or commercial standpoint, the overall automobile sales in the United States has historically remained steady with occasional fluctuations mainly due to economic downturns or slowdown at the national level. A similar commercial trend is also expected to follow in the near and distant future and given the necessity of personal vehicles in many major large cities and municipal towns for both personal and business/commercial purposes due to the relatively poor and backward condition of the public transportation services, the demand for personal and commercial vehicles and automobiles is expected to be stable over time. In such circumstances or scenario, stringent pollution control and greenhouse gas emission standards at the state level, could compel many automobile manufacturers to modify the operational aspects of their vehicles or autombiles in order to make them more fuel and energy efficient and friendly, which could possibly increase overall production costs or expenses. However, considering a relatively stable consumer demand for both personal and commercial vehicles or automobiles for practical purposes, it is unlikely that the domestic automobile manufacturers and sellers in the US would experience a major bankruptcy because of the stricter emission standards, at least from the perspective of the current and expected domestic consumer demand.