California officials were rather steamed last week after the Bush administration announced new fuel economy rules that claim to preempt state action limiting auto emissions-- going so far as to threaten yet another lawsuit over NHTSA's efforts to rewrite the congressional record. But as per today's Clean Air Report (subscription req.), California Air Resources Board Chairwoman Mary Nichols noticed that there might be a silver lining to the rules:
Nichols said during an April 23 press conference that the state will sue NHTSA if it adopts the preemption language in the CAFE rules. However, she added that the language may actually bolster the state's lawsuit against EPA for denying the state last year a Clean Air Act waiver to implement its own vehicle GHG regulations...
Nichols said that because NHTSA and DOT appear to be claiming sole responsibility for regulating GHG emissions from vehicles through fuel economy standards, it may rebut an argument EPA is making in the lawsuit over the waiver denial that the environmental agency may still develop its own GHG regulations for vehicles.
"This is . . . certainly something we will be taking to court, in our litigation against EPA over their denial of our waiver to pursue the Pavley regulations, because part of the EPA's position in the lawsuit is that they might get around to setting emission standards," Nichols said. "Now, we have another agency . . . saying no, EPA will not set emission standards because we, the DOT, will take it all over and set fuel economy standards and that will be it."
We're absolutely SHOCKED that, in the same waiver-denial defense that inadvertently documented how global warming endangers human health and welfare, EPA may have ended up contradicting yet another administration legal position. Then again, when you're part of an administration that seems to be making this stuff up as it goes along, it's kind of hard to maintain rock-solid consistency...
California officials also told Clean Air Report that the CAFE preemption language might not have any legal effect if it ends up in an appendix to NHTSA's final regulations, citing the precedent of 2007 rules that included similar language in their preamble.
Comments