{"id":87244,"date":"2019-10-03T09:00:00","date_gmt":"2019-10-03T16:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.rei.com\/blog\/?p=87244"},"modified":"2019-10-04T13:18:01","modified_gmt":"2019-10-04T20:18:01","slug":"the-california-emissions-waiver-lawsuit-explained","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rei.com\/blog\/news\/the-california-emissions-waiver-lawsuit-explained","title":{"rendered":"The California Emissions Waiver Lawsuit\u2014Explained"},"content":{"rendered":"

Twenty-two states have joined California in a <\/span>lawsuit<\/span><\/a> aimed at protecting the state\u2019s<\/span> ability to set stricter emissions standards than those proposed by the federal government. The highly publicized battle stems from the administration\u2019s decision to relax <\/span>Obama-era emissions standards<\/span><\/a> and revoke California\u2019s ability to set its own.<\/span><\/p>\n

The administration\u2019s <\/span>proposed standard<\/span><\/a> would lower the national fuel economy requirement from an average of 54.5 miles per gallon to about 37 miles per gallon by 2025. However, 23 states are demanding that California maintain its ability to set stricter standards, in part because they say more aggressive laws are needed to protect public health and meet state air pollution reduction goals. As it stands, the administration\u2019s decision to revoke California\u2019s ability to set its own standards will take effect Nov. 26, according to a notice in <\/span>the Federal Register<\/span><\/a>.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

But how likely is it that states could win a legal battle against the administration? And how did California earn its original emissions waiver? Here\u2019s what you need to know about the state\u2019s existing ability to regulate emissions and the arguments for and against revoking a state\u2019s waiver to set its own emissions standards.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Why does California have a waiver?<\/b><\/h4>\n

California has been setting its own air quality laws for decades. Margo Oge, director of the Office of Transportation and Air Quality at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from 1994 to 2012, said that California began setting its own standards since as early as 1967, before the EPA\u2014the federal agency that is revoking the state\u2019s waiver\u2014was even formed. And the lawsuit filed by 23 states in federal court last month claims California has been regulating vehicle emissions for even longer\u2014since 1959.<\/p>\n

The state was first granted a federal waiver to set its own air quality standards<\/span>\u2014<\/span>including emissions standards<\/span>\u2014in 1968 <\/span>under the <\/span>Clean Air Act<\/span><\/a>. The law was amended in 1970, and the EPA was given responsibility to set standards for any air pollutants. The amended law recognized that California required more aggressive standards than other states given its air quality problems, growing population, location and weather, <\/span>according to the California Air Resources Board<\/span><\/a>. The decision also acknowledged that the state had already been setting its own standards, even before the Clean Air Act began mandating federal ones.<\/span><\/p>\n

California\u2019s ability to set its own standards isn\u2019t just important for California. It has national significance as well<\/span>. The Clean Air Act eventually incorporated language that allowed other states to adopt California\u2019s stricter standards, Oge said. Today, 14 states have adopted or are in the process of adopting California\u2019s standards, according to Reuters.<\/span><\/p>\n

Over the years, California has been granted hundreds of waivers to set its own emissions laws. But are the tougher standards actually helping to decrease the state\u2019s greenhouse gas emissions?\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

According to an <\/span>August report from the California Air Resources Board<\/span><\/a>, 2017 was the second year in a row that California\u2019s greenhouse gas emissions dropped below a statewide 2020 target established by the <\/span>Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006<\/span><\/a>. This happened even as the California economy grew at a rate of 3.6 percent<\/span>\u2014<\/span>1.4 percent above the national average, according to the report.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe study proves<\/span> that this stuff is working,\u201d Oge said.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

She said that California\u2019s wildfires, droughts and eroding beaches<\/span> show that the state needs the tougher standards. Carbon emissions contribute to a warming climate, which can cause these environmental challenges. It would be harder for California to meet state air pollution reduction goals without stricter emissions standards, according to the lawsuit.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe administration is going to have an impossible task to assess that California doesn\u2019t have an extraordinary need for cleaner air given the data that exists out there,\u201d she said.<\/span><\/p>\n

What are the arguments for and against the waiver?<\/b><\/h4>\n

The Trump administration cites multiple reasons for revoking California\u2019s ability to set its own emissions laws. Chief among them<\/span> is <\/span>to prevent the auto industry from having to comply with multiple standards.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said in a <\/span>prepared statement<\/span><\/a> in mid-September that \u201cone national standard provides much needed regulatory certainty for the automotive industry.\u201d Essentially, if California were to continue setting far stricter standards than those federally mandated for other states, automakers might feel forced to create vehicles for two different standards.<\/span><\/p>\n

Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao said in the same statement that the administration\u2019s action aims to ensure \u201cthat no state has the authority to opt out of the nation\u2019s rules and no state has the ability to impose its policies on the rest of the country.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

The EPA declined to provide additional comments beyond the prepared statement.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Dennis McLerran, an attorney with <\/span>Cascadia Law Group<\/span><\/a> in Seattle, said he believes the administration\u2019s argument is built on \u201cvery shaky ground.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

McLerran said automakers operate in a global market with more sales in China than in the U.S. With increasingly stricter emissions standards in those markets, McLerran said the U.S. risks falling behind if it relaxes its own standards<\/span><\/p>\n

He added that the administration\u2019s other arguments<\/span>\u2014<\/span>for instance, that relaxing standards will make cars safer and cheaper to buy<\/span>\u2014<\/span>have been disproved by California officials.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

A <\/span>study released<\/span><\/a> by Consumer Reports<\/em>\u00a0in August found that consumers would pay more overall under the proposed, relaxed standards compared to the existing ones. Under the current standards<\/span>\u2014<\/span>which affect cars from model year 2017 to 2025<\/span>\u2014<\/span>American consumers net $660 billion dollars in gasoline and other savings, according to the study. Consumers would lose $460 billion of those savings under the proposed standards because they would be spending more each year on fuel.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The study also noted that the proposed standard would decrease auto sales by more than 2 million vehicles between model year 2021 and 2035, and it would not improve safety. This decrease would happen, in part, because rising fuel costs would mean consumers have less money to spend on new vehicles, according to the study. The same study also noted that improved fuel economy makes vehicles more attractive.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Oge said<\/span> that in addition to possibly creating a more difficult marketplace for automakers, the administration\u2019s proposed standards will stifle innovation.\u00a0<\/span>She added that<\/span> California\u2019s ability to set stricter rules has helped it serve as a laboratory for experimentation in different technologies, like electric vehicles.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cWhat is really at stake in attacking the California authority is that it\u2019s going to undermine clean air, it\u2019s going to undermine innovation in the marketplace, and it\u2019s going to undermine the global efforts of the car companies,\u201d Oge said.<\/span><\/p>\n

Why are 23 states filing suit?\u00a0<\/b><\/h4>\n

On Sept. 20,<\/span>\u00a0<\/b>nearly two dozen\u00a0states<\/span> filed to sue to prevent the Trump administration from revoking California\u2019s ability to set its own standards, according to a <\/span>complaint<\/span><\/a> filed in federal court.<\/span><\/p>\n

The complaint claims that California\u2019s standards \u201care longstanding and fundamental parts of many [states\u2019] efforts to protect public health and welfare in their states.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The states contend that the administration hasn\u2019t considered the damage that revoking the waiver will inflict on the environment, public health and welfare.<\/span><\/p>\n

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) said in an emailed statement Monday that her state \u201cis not going to sit on the sidelines while the Trump administration does everything it can, in the little time we have left, to shove us off track from our climate goals.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Other states joining the lawsuit include California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin. The District of Columbia has also joined the lawsuit.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Gov. Lujan Grisham said the state\u2019s recent decision to uphold California\u2019s emissions standards gives New Mexico \u201cthe opportunity to join the legal pushback against the attempted Trump rollbacks.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

What\u2019s next?\u00a0<\/b><\/h4>\n

McLerran said one of the administration\u2019s main arguments for revoking California\u2019s waiver is that the state is setting a fuel economy requirement, not an emissions requirement. However, California has been careful to defend its standard as a way to reduce climate-warming emissions, he said. This is important because the states\u2019 complaint argues that stricter standards will protect public health and air quality.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Oge noted that if the lawsuit goes to the Supreme Court, it won\u2019t be until after the next election. That is significant because the winner of the next presidential election will greatly influence how the case unfolds<\/span>\u2014<\/span>and whether it goes to the Supreme Court at all.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In the meantime, Oge said the pending lawsuit puts automakers in a state of limbo because the companies typically plan five years ahead for production. Right now, there\u2019s no guarantee of what to expect.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

On whether California could win a lawsuit if it were to go to the highest court, Oge said she feels confident that California has enough science to support its argument for stricter standards.\u00a0<\/span>Still, she said it\u2019s painful to see environmental issues become partisan.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cWe all breathe the same air. We drink the same water,\u201d she said.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Twenty-two states have joined California in a lawsuit aimed at protecting the state\u2019s ability to set stricter emissions standards than those proposed by the federal government. The highly publicized battle stems from the administration\u2019s decision to relax Obama-era emissions standards and revoke California\u2019s ability to set its own. The administration\u2019s proposed standard would lower the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":72,"featured_media":87247,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[685],"tags":[160,727,692,1484,1549],"internal-tag":[],"class_list":["post-87244","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","tag-california","tag-latest-posts","tag-news","tag-staff-society","tag-west"],"parsely":{"version":"1.1.0","canonical_url":"https:\/\/rei.com\/blog\/news\/the-california-emissions-waiver-lawsuit-explained","smart_links":{"inbound":0,"outbound":0},"traffic_boost_suggestions_count":0,"meta":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@type":"NewsArticle","headline":"The California Emissions Waiver Lawsuit\u2014Explained","url":"http:\/\/www.rei.com\/blog\/news\/the-california-emissions-waiver-lawsuit-explained","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"http:\/\/www.rei.com\/blog\/news\/the-california-emissions-waiver-lawsuit-explained"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.rei.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2019\/10\/Hero_CA-Emissions-Standard_Skrobecki_11302016_0179.gif?resize=150%2C150","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https:\/\/www.rei.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2019\/10\/Hero_CA-Emissions-Standard_Skrobecki_11302016_0179.gif?fit=2000%2C1331"},"articleSection":"News","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"Jessica Bernhard"}],"creator":["Jessica Bernhard"],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Uncommon Path \u2013 An REI Co-op Publication","logo":""},"keywords":["california","latest posts","news","staff society","west"],"dateCreated":"2019-10-03T16:00:00Z","datePublished":"2019-10-03T16:00:00Z","dateModified":"2019-10-04T20:18:01Z"},"rendered":"