Comments on: Judge in Vermont Upholds California Emissions Standards http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/09/17/vermont-judge-upholds-california-emissions-standards/ Covering the New York City Streets Renaissance Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:07:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Carfree Chicago http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/09/17/vermont-judge-upholds-california-emissions-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-37119 Carfree Chicago Tue, 18 Sep 2007 00:30:39 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/09/17/vermont-judge-upholds-california-emissions-standards/#comment-37119 They might stop selling over-sized gas-guzzling cars, SUVs and trucks? Oh no! They might stop selling over-sized gas-guzzling cars, SUVs and trucks? Oh no!

]]> By: Dave H. http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/09/17/vermont-judge-upholds-california-emissions-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-37102 Dave H. Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:49:53 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/09/17/vermont-judge-upholds-california-emissions-standards/#comment-37102 Gelston - I can't answer your questions, but they seem to be very similar to what the case that was just decided has ruled on. (Classifications for the purposes regulating emissions are really just a subset of larger area of emissions regulations, which the court has apparently decided that, as applied by the states of Vermont and California, is okay). I doubt, however, that NYC could get into this business - but you'd have to look at the New York State Constitution and case law to be sure. For a perhaps more persipicuous explanation of pre-emption (what I tried to explain above), take a look at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preemption_%28law%29 Gelston – I can’t answer your questions, but they seem to be very similar to what the case that was just decided has ruled on. (Classifications for the purposes regulating emissions are really just a subset of larger area of emissions regulations, which the court has apparently decided that, as applied by the states of Vermont and California, is okay). I doubt, however, that NYC could get into this business – but you’d have to look at the New York State Constitution and case law to be sure.

For a perhaps more persipicuous explanation of pre-emption (what I tried to explain above), take a look at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preemption_%28law%29

]]> By: gelston http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/09/17/vermont-judge-upholds-california-emissions-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-37091 gelston Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:12:03 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/09/17/vermont-judge-upholds-california-emissions-standards/#comment-37091 Does a state have the right to classify SUV's as light trucks and regulate them accordingly? How about commercial vs. non-commercial vehicles? How about NYC vs. NYS? Does a state have the right to classify SUV’s as light trucks and regulate them accordingly? How about commercial vs. non-commercial vehicles? How about NYC vs. NYS?

]]> By: Dave H. http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/09/17/vermont-judge-upholds-california-emissions-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-37090 Dave H. Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:51:33 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/09/17/vermont-judge-upholds-california-emissions-standards/#comment-37090 http://www.vtd.uscourts.gov/Supporting%20Files/Cases/05cv302.pdf Sorry forgot the link to the opinion. http://www.vtd.uscourts.gov/Supporting%20Files/Cases/05cv302.pdf

Sorry forgot the link to the opinion.

]]> By: Dave H. http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/09/17/vermont-judge-upholds-california-emissions-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-37089 Dave H. Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:51:09 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/09/17/vermont-judge-upholds-california-emissions-standards/#comment-37089 Ddartley, Those are very good questions. Here is the judge's opinion. I don't really have time to read it right now but they are usually pretty accessible (just skip over all the citations to other cases; generally this shouldn't be essential). Taking a quick look at the opinion (and hopefully a lawyer will confirm) the plaintiffs (the automakers) were suing on constitutional grounds. The argument would then go something like this: 1) The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution says that Federal law is the supreme law of the land and that it always trumps state law when the two are in conflict. 2) The federal government is authorized by the constitution to do pass law X or authorize regulation X (often these regulations are supposedly authorized by the interstate commerce clause of the constitution). 3) Federal law X (or regulation x) conflicts with state law Y. 4) Because the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution that says Federal law trumps state law when in conflict (and constitutionally authorized), state law Y must be struck down. Ddartley,

Those are very good questions. Here is the judge’s opinion. I don’t really have time to read it right now but they are usually pretty accessible (just skip over all the citations to other cases; generally this shouldn’t be essential). Taking a quick look at the opinion (and hopefully a lawyer will confirm) the plaintiffs (the automakers) were suing on constitutional grounds. The argument would then go something like this:

1) The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution says that Federal law is the supreme law of the land and that it always trumps state law when the two are in conflict.

2) The federal government is authorized by the constitution to do pass law X or authorize regulation X (often these regulations are supposedly authorized by the interstate commerce clause of the constitution).

3) Federal law X (or regulation x) conflicts with state law Y.

4) Because the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution that says Federal law trumps state law when in conflict (and constitutionally authorized), state law Y must be struck down.

]]> By: ddartley http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/09/17/vermont-judge-upholds-california-emissions-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-37087 ddartley Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:39:55 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/09/17/vermont-judge-upholds-california-emissions-standards/#comment-37087 I have NEVER understood why EPA has oversight of California standards. Never. I'm not a lawyer, but what the heck is it? Some interstate commerce principle? I mean, if CA says "all cars in CA must do this," what LEGAL principle in US law says that the Federal gov can oversee and even stop that law's enforcement? All I can come up with is that it would hurt car companies, which to my mind is NOT a matter of LAW, but merely the Federal gov intervening to protect an industry. THAT is what seems legally dubious--not the choice by a particular state to legislate mileage standards. It seems to me that if the Federal gov wanted to do LEGALLY what they're already doing with EPA oversight of CA law, they'd have to pass a FEDERAL law that says no state can legislate mileage standards. Can anyone explain what the legal basis is for EPA oversight of CA mileage standards is?? I have NEVER understood why EPA has oversight of California standards. Never. I’m not a lawyer, but what the heck is it? Some interstate commerce principle?

I mean, if CA says “all cars in CA must do this,” what LEGAL principle in US law says that the Federal gov can oversee and even stop that law’s enforcement?

All I can come up with is that it would hurt car companies, which to my mind is NOT a matter of LAW, but merely the Federal gov intervening to protect an industry. THAT is what seems legally dubious–not the choice by a particular state to legislate mileage standards. It seems to me that if the Federal gov wanted to do LEGALLY what they’re already doing with EPA oversight of CA law, they’d have to pass a FEDERAL law that says no state can legislate mileage standards.

Can anyone explain what the legal basis is for EPA oversight of CA mileage standards is??

]]> By: momos http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/09/17/vermont-judge-upholds-california-emissions-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-37085 momos Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:26:53 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/09/17/vermont-judge-upholds-california-emissions-standards/#comment-37085 This is really fantastic news. The car industry has been notoriously obsessed with meddling with California's laws. While they weren't looking, the northeastern states (Vermont in particular has been trailblazing) have moved aggressively on global warming in the last 2-3 years. Many people were involved in this effort. From the article: "Vermont and its allies were jubilant Wednesday. 'This is a huge win. If you are concerned about the environment in general and global warming specifically, it is a great day,' said Attorney General William Sorrell, whose office defended the case with the help of New York state and a number of environmental groups." There is a potentially fatal loophole, however. The California limits must still be approved by the Bush EPA. Car lobbyists in DC are going to have a field day. This is really fantastic news. The car industry has been notoriously obsessed with meddling with California’s laws. While they weren’t looking, the northeastern states (Vermont in particular has been trailblazing) have moved aggressively on global warming in the last 2-3 years.

Many people were involved in this effort.

From the article:
“Vermont and its allies were jubilant Wednesday. ‘This is a huge win. If you are concerned about the environment in general and global warming specifically, it is a great day,’ said Attorney General William Sorrell, whose office defended the case with the help of New York state and a number of environmental groups.”

There is a potentially fatal loophole, however. The California limits must still be approved by the Bush EPA. Car lobbyists in DC are going to have a field day.

]]>