VT Court Rejects Automakers' Attempt to Continue Polluting

The author of today's post, Jim Tripp, is General Counsel at Environmental Defense. Working with state agencies and other environmental groups, Tripp presented arguments in the Vermont trial this spring.

We won an important victory today. A federal judge in Vermont ruled against U.S. automakers' attempt to block states from setting new rules limiting global warming pollution from automobiles. In his ruling, Judge William K. Sessions III said that the auto industry failed to prove that it could not safely meet the tailpipe standards.

A number of environmental groups joined the State of Vermont in defending the case, including us at Environmental Defense, the Conservation Law Foundation, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Vermont Public Interest Research Group.

So can Vermont now implement the tighter emissions requirements? Not quite yet.

It all started in California back in 2002, with the Pavley Global Warming Bill. After the new emissions regulations were adopted, California requested a waiver from the EPA to put the tougher requirements into effect.

First the EPA said that it had no jurisdiction over CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act. That didn't work. This past April, the Supreme Court ruled that EPA did have the authority to regulate CO2 emissions, and was required to do so.

But California is still waiting for EPA's ruling on its waiver, and so are 14 other states who have adopted the same emissions requirements. Environmental Defense has filed a notice of intent to sue the EPA if they do not rule on the California waiver request by November 2007.

In the meantime – just in case the EPA gave California its waiver – automakers filed suit in California, Vermont, and Rhode Island objecting to the tougher standards. A judge postponed the California case until the Vermont case was decided. Our victory today creates a precedent that strengthens our position when the California case is heard.

We haven't won the Pavley war yet, but we are one step closer having won this important battle.

This entry was posted in Cars and Pollution. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

2 Comments

  1. captainlaser
    Posted September 13, 2007 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

    Congratulations to Vermont and particularly to Judge Sessions for his wise ruling.

    I posted a similar notice on DailyKos after Jim Hansen distributed the verdict.

    A trip of a thousand miles is made one step at a time.

    Nice post.

  2. teenspirit24
    Posted September 19, 2007 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

    I think that this is one of the best controversies for the state.Not only are they the state that uses less cars but they are showing the world that they care about what is happening to the environment.I think it stupid for the automakers to say that they wont sell to the state, its only making less investment for themselves.I'm sure that it would cost more but in the long run if they make cars more fuel efficient and safe they will gain more money, people well buy more cars in Vermont and other states well declare the same problem and agree to Vermont's law. This will increase the profit of the automakers company.It doesn't matter where the law comes from first, nothing starts out big everything starts small.

2 Trackbacks

  • About this blog

    Expert to expert commentary on the science, law and economics of climate change.

  • Categories

  • Get blog posts by email

    Subscribe via RSS

  • Meet The Bloggers

    Megan CeronskyMegan Ceronsky
    Attorney

    Nat KeohaneNat Keohane
    Vice President for International Climate

    Ilissa Ocko
    High Meadows Fellow, Office of Chief Scientist

    Peter Zalzal
    Staff Attorney

    Gernot Wagner
    Senior Economist

    Graham McCahan
    Attorney

    Mandy Warner
    Climate & Air Policy Specialist

    Pamela Campos
    Attorney

    Kritee
    High Meadows Scientist