Fed Judge Upholds California Emissions Law

[Ordie]

December 13, 2007

Federal Judge Upholds Law on Emissions in California

By JOHN M. BRODER (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/john_m_broder/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
NY Times
WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Sacramento on Wednesday upheld a California (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/national/usstatesterritoriesandpossessions/california/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) law regulating greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, another in a string of legal defeats for the auto industry this year.
The ruling, by Judge Anthony W. Ishii of United States District Court, affirms a 2002 California law that would effectively force automakers to raise the average fuel economy of fleets by about 30 percent by 2016. A bill pending in Congress demands a 40 percent mileage increase by 2020.
The auto companies challenged the California law, which 15 other states say they intend to adopt, saying that it is technically and financially impossible to meet. They also argued that regulation of vehicle mileage is the responsibility of the federal government, not the states.
“We can all agree that higher fuel economy is important, but the issue here was about federal fuel economy law,” said Dave McCurdy, president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. “Under federal law, only the federal government can set fuel economy standards for all 50 states.”
Mr. McCurdy noted that the industry had agreed to a pending Congressional mandate to achieve a 35-mile-per-gallon fleetwide average by 2020.
Judge Ishii, though, said that California was entitled to set its own stricter standards under the Clean Air Act, if the Environmental Protection Agency (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/e/environmental_protection_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org) grants a waiver from federal law, which it has done dozens of times in the last 35 years. California applied to the Bush administration for a waiver in December 2005. The White House has said that it will issue a decision by the end of this month.
While Republican and Democratic administrations have routinely granted California waivers on pollution programs, this one is more controversial because the auto companies and other industries are lobbying heavily against it, saying it will cost them too much to comply. The White House has not tipped its hand on California’s application.
The judge also rejected the automakers’ claim that the state law usurps the federal government’s right to conduct foreign policy because climate change (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) is a global problem. He said there was no legal precedent for the claim.
Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. of California called the ruling “a major victory.”
“This is the fourth defeat for the Bush administration and the auto companies,” Mr. Brown said, “and I hope it sends a powerful message to the White House and to Congress that California’s role as an innovator should be appreciated and not negated.”
He was referring to an April decision by the United States Supreme Court (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/supreme_court/index.html?inline=nyt-org) affirming the E.P.A.’s authority to regulate vehicles’ greenhouse gas emissions; a federal court ruling from Vermont in May upholding California’s law; and a federal appeals court ruling in November chastising the Department of Transportation for failing to enforce its vehicle mileage rules and for not taking the impact of exhaust gases into account.
In 2002, California adopted the first state law requiring auto makers to begin reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases. In 2004, it issued rules for achieving the reductions. Vermont adopted the same standards, as did other states, including Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania.
Fran Pavley, a former member of the California State Assembly who wrote the emissions bill, said on Wednesday that Judge Ishii’s ruling represented a legal tipping point, leaving the automakers and the Bush administration isolated on the regulation of gases that scientists say contribute to global warming.
“What we’re finding is that this is a bipartisan issue,” Ms. Pavley said. “The states have moved on and they are working together to be responsible in doing their fair share to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”


Source:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/13/washington/13emissions.html?ref=us&pagewanted=print

[2Sheds_Jackson]

“This is the fourth defeat for the Bush administration and the auto companies,” Mr. Brown said, “and I hope it sends a powerful message to the White House and to Congress that California’s role as an innovator should be appreciated and not negated.”

Oh yes I'm sure this will be foremost in the mind of all the laid off workers. They'll be pleased as punch that the Bush administration has been defeated yet again by the correct thinkers of the world. Another nail in the domestic auto industry's coffin.

[wotsnext]

I think this sort of move may just give car makers the excuse they need to wind down thier plants in the US......"Its not our fault"

[Ordie]

I think this is good.

The Big Three will always whine and blame others for producing crappy cars that Americans won't buy. Their best hope is to produce limited editions of updated classic designs.

I don't see any major job losses, if anything it may be a wash. Toyota and Honda will most likely step up to the plate and produce cars with California specifications. It may expand capacity at its US Assembly plants in California, Kentucky, Indiana, Alabama, Ohio, and Maryland.

The Big Three are litigating as a means to buy time for their lack of vision.

Politically Bush is in the minority. Many GOP politicians are on board with the new emissions standards including Governor Schwarzenegger.

[muttbutt]

Ordie has a point, the big 3 have to go by European standard's of fuel/milage and emissions to sell car's here, which they do, why are they fobbing of the US public to not give them the same quality, there was a survey comparison done here a year or 2 back on smae models sold here and the US, the one's here had significantly higher MTTG, yes a bit more expensive but then you save on fuel especially on a country like the US where driving is essential, and frquently long distence.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

The big 3 are mired in expensive union labor - and to offset those expenses, they must - not a choice here - they must focus on larger vehicles where there is more profit margin. It costs them far more to build a car than it costs Honda or Toyota - who even though they do have factories here, are not unionized.

So this will do exactly what the automakers say it will do - it will increase import market share and decrease domestic market share. We'll still build cars here, but they'll be foreign owned corporations using non-union labor. If you're anti-union, this is a good thing, as Toyota, Honda, Suzuki, Nissan, Hyundai etc. will be churning out small, efficient cars like crazy, while using workers with lower pay and benefits.

[Ordie]

If you're anti-union, this is a good thing, as Toyota, Honda, Suzuki, Nissan, Hyundai etc. will be churning out small, efficient cars like crazy, while using workers with lower pay and benefits.

The National Labor Relations Act gives the right for any worker in the US to organize a union. It so happens to be that Toyota and Honda workers voted not to be part of a union.

[shocker1]

The Big Three will always whine and blame others for producing crappy cars that Americans won't buy. Their best hope is to produce limited editions of updated classic designs.

I don't see any major job losses, if anything it may be a wash.
Well I see job losses as the increased production cost of retooling for "updated classic designs" as well as the increased cost of the additional emission components, training, software ect....... This will shift jobs, I just hope they stay here. What are these updated classic designs you are speaking of?

I also see gains in other areas such as engineering and repair/retrofit services. I have worked for one of the big three as a field service rep and I was laid off in 1996. While I tend to agree with the goals for mpg, I would rather the market drive the product and plant trees.


The National Labor Relations Act gives the right for any worker in the US to organize a union. It so happens to be that Toyota and Honda workers voted not to be part of a union.
Now here is where I went after my Big 3 employment. Pay was less, they had good benefits but I can tell you rigid management and control puts some pressure on Union attempts. I have voted no twice at the Huntsville position and at the electric bus manufacturer. I do not like Unions my self. I tend to think it is more important to be a company man, that is until I can make more in some new venture elsewhere.:) So goes the way of the market today.

[Kilgor]

Ordie has a point, the big 3 have to go by European standard's of fuel/milage and emissions to sell car's here, which they do, why are they fobbing of the US public to not give them the same quality, there was a survey comparison done here a year or 2 back on smae models sold here and the US, the one's here had significantly higher MTTG, yes a bit more expensive but then you save on fuel especially on a country like the US where driving is essential, and frquently long distence.

This is like the 1970's fuel crisis all over again. The big 3 were caught out with gas guzzling hulks that were poorly build, and the Japanese had on the market fuel efficient quality built cars.

[Ordie]

What are these updated classic designs you are speaking of?

Here's a link.

http://autos.aol.com/article/power/v2/_a/detroit-brings-the-muscle/20070208112009990002

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Here we go again. Blame the unions for a companies problems.

A union does not control the decisions made by the board. Fact is globalisation has meant that companies are no longer trading on a level playing field.

If anyone is to blame for all this it is the governments and companies who are the driving force behind globalisation. You reap what you so.

[shocker1]

Here's a link.

http://autos.aol.com/article/power/v2/_a/detroit-brings-the-muscle/20070208112009990002
So that is the answer to all this. To me as an avid electric drive fan, the hybrid concept is a patch attempt to hang on to the gas station concept. Still that article showed very little advancement in drive system technology. The little info that was presented is a half hearted attempt to show "we are working on it".

I am with you though the domestic industry has neglected real innovation. I have seen the mindset that causes this. It is the consumer's mindset most of all to blame in the end though. Why are we not driving pure electric cars? Oil, nostalgia, ignorance, convenience, trust and infrastructure, imagine the load on the power grid with millions of inductive chargers humming away.. I have faith in fuel cell technology and in my humble opinion that is what our next generation drive system will be. Too bad we are using all that platinum and palladium in catalytic converters.

[hank]

Here we go again. Blame the unions for a companies problems.

A union does not control the decisions made by the board. Fact is globalisation has meant that companies are no longer trading on a level playing field.

If anyone is to blame for all this it is the governments and companies who are the driving force behind globalisation. You reap what you so.

Well the unions certainly share some blame. I don't know how you can argue otherwise, but its not their fault alone. A lot of factors at work here.

How does any of this impact California's decision to require higher fuel economy standards? The fact is that regardless of the poor decisions in Detroit this will happen. Why? Market forces. I'm a little sick of everybody whining about poor Detroit and poor auto workers. Economies change. Needs change. Those companies (and unions) that adapt survive, those who don't die. No different here.

How in the world could any government stop globalization? Its here to stay and has been for a while. Govts that fight it lose and will continue to lose.

hank

[2Sheds_Jackson]

The National Labor Relations Act gives the right for any worker in the US to organize a union. It so happens to be that Toyota and Honda workers voted not to be part of a union.

But the question isn't whether or not the employees at Honda can start a union if they wish - the question is whether or not an auto company can rid themselves of a union if they wish. And they can't. Not unless they declare bankruptcy and go to court to have their union contracts voided.

BTW you won't find many people who are more anti-union than I am. But I do recognize the fact that the unions exist, and that our domestic manufacturers are stuck with them while - for the moment anyway - foreign owned ones are not. That affects the bottom line to a huge extent - which manifests itself ultimately in sales - and the ever-shrinking market share of our indigenous industry. It can't go on forever.

I've watched several manufacturers go away. The "big 3" are no longer the "big 3" by any definition. They're the "last 3". And one was bought by an investment firm, who, after another catered breakfast gives them stomach cramps, may decide to simply carve it up and sell it off. They're money people, not car people.

I simply believe there is still value and relevance to be found in domestic ownership of the industries we support. Until we abolish flags and governments and the agendas they push, it will still mater who owns what and where. And therefore I believe that our government has a role in maintaining our indigenous auto industry. Something short of protectionism - maybe just sound policies that don't hand over market share on a silver platter. The cynic in me would love to see what stocks those CA legislators own p-).

[Ordie]

And therefore I believe that our government has a role in maintaining our indigenous auto industry. Something short of protectionism - maybe just sound policies that don't hand over market share on a silver platter.

The Government still has "Buy America" policies for government contracts as a means to protect a stratigic domestic source. However, depending on the specifications, the products associated with these contracts sometimes are not the best and usually goes to the lower bidder.

If specified correctly and based on fair competition, they one might get a good product from US manufacturers....but at a price.

The future of US Automakers may may follow the Harley-Davidson model of producing nostalgia at a premium price.

Unions need to realize that without an employer, there would be no unions.

Wages and benefits are not the core issues. Sometimes work rules need to change to allow for more flexibily.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

The Government still has "Buy America" policies for government contracts as a means to protect a stratigic domestic source. However, depending on the specifications, the products associated with these contracts sometimes are not the best and usually goes to the lower bidder.

Oh man - that reminded me of the total piece of sh*t cars that we had as ops vehicles back when I was USAF. First it was a Chrysler K-car (back when the gov't saved them), and then a Ford Zephyr wagon. It would only go about 96mph, and was a danger to itself in doing so. I used to do runway checks with it. We had an 11,000 ft runway, and I'd floor it - the tower guys would be on the radio laughing their asses off "ok you've got V1, your front wheels are off the ground! hahah!". It was brand new and was just a terrible, terrible car.



The future of US Automakers may may follow the Harley-Davidson model of producing nostalgia at a premium price.

Not a bad idea really - niche manufacturing seems to work fine for other brands sold in the US (BMW etc.). They've got some ground to cover though, to get there - starting with bold and innovative designs that don't look like Accords.



Wages and benefits are not the core issues. Sometimes work rules need to change to allow for more flexibily.

I dunno. I mean I agree that's true, but is GM really harder to work for than Toyota? Surely management at GM would be willing to make the same concessions as Toyota. I think the union has just done a fantastic job of making themselves appear indispensable - as if without them, the workers would be put to the lash.

[DaGreatRV]

If US car compagnies would sell models wich comply to standards and make it a good car, they could make it a hit and perhaps more people will be employed! :)

I'm just saying that better fuel economy in cars doesnt mean compagnies need to suffer.

[JKD]

I'd happily buy American if they made any vehicles I want. I like the Jeep Wrangler and that's pretty much it.

Ford just needs to start importing it's European cars. Only Ford of America could take a sexy beast like the Mazda6 and turn it into something as bland as the Fusion.

I've got a WRX now and there really is no American counterpart. Chevy Cobalt SS maybe. But it doesn't have AWD which I need. And the Ford Focus is like what, a 9 year old platform now with just a few facelifts? Then I guess there's the Dodge Caliber...when did Chrylser decide all it's vehicles needed to look like bricks?

And someone tell Detroit some of us still like manual transmissions.

If I ever find myself with 6 kids and a boat to tow I might consider buying some lumbering Suburban, Tahoe, Escalade, Expedition, etc. But other than that those sorts of trucks are completely useless to me. Forget about off-roading with them where I live. Too big for the trails around here. And then there's the price of gas. Just enormous grocery getters for suburban soccer moms.

If those are the only sorts of vehicles the Big 3 can make a profit on, well, tough sh*t. They dug their own hole.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

The big 3 are mired in expensive union labor - and to offset those expenses, they must - not a choice here - they must focus on larger vehicles where there is more profit margin. It costs them far more to build a car than it costs Honda or Toyota - who even though they do have factories here, are not unionized.



The Japanese have strong unionism especially in industry. Japan also has very high labor costs. I wonder why they can still make profitable small cars?

Blaming the union movement for a companies is short sited and fails to look at the bigger picture.

[ViktorNavorski]

The Japanese have strong unionism especially in industry. Japan also has very high labor costs. I wonder why they can still make profitable small cars?52 non-unionize plants in 27 countries producing more cars than the domestic plants.

[Ordie]

All Unions cannot be labeled the same way.

For example, Southwest Airlines employees are unionized and are the most productive in the industry. Southwest must be doing something right since they have been well managed, consistantly profitable and is considered one of the top workplaces to work for.

Southwest employees are given a greater degree of freedom to make things work instead of being pigeon-holed to do a single task. Much of it is attitude. They tend to hire personalities rather than skills.

Unions must evolve or die. They need to drop the work rules and specifications and focus on benefits (medical). Without the flexibility, companies cannot survive.