question archive In the Clean Air Act as amended, Congress allowed California, which has serious problems with air quality, to adopt its own standards for emissions from cars and trucks, subject to the approval of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) according to certain standards
In the Clean Air Act as amended, Congress allowed California, which has serious problems with air quality, to adopt its own standards for emissions from cars and trucks, subject to the approval of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) according to certain standards
Subject:EconomicsPrice:2.87 Bought7
In the Clean Air Act as amended, Congress allowed California, which has serious problems with air quality, to adopt its own standards for emissions from cars and trucks, subject to the approval of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) according to certain standards. The Act also allowed other states to adopt California’s standards after EPA approval.
In 2004, California adopted emissions standards for all new passenger vehicles and light- duty trucks sold in California beginning in 2009. The standards imposed decreasing limits on emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHG) through 2016.
While EPA approval was pending, other states adopted the California standards. A group of industry associations, automakers, and new car dealerships filed suit to block state adoption of the standards (including California).
(a) Under the Environmental Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), a designated federal agency sets fuel economy standards for new cars. The plaintiffs argued, among other things, that the EPCA, which explicitly prohibits states from adopting separate fuel economy standards, preempts states from adopting their own emission standards. Is the plaintiffs’ argument valid? Discuss.
(b) Do the state emissions rules impose on the efforts of the federal government to address global warming internationally? Who should regulate GHGs, the states or the federal government? Both? Neither? Discuss.
(c) The plaintiffs also argued that they would go bankrupt if they were forced to adhere to a different GHG standard for each state. Should they be granted relief on this basis? Does history support their claim? Discuss.
Purchase A New Answer
Custom new solution created by our subject matter experts
GET A QUOTE
Answer Preview
Answer:
- Yes, the plaintiff’s argument is valid in terms of EPCA prohibiting state from adopting separate fuel economy standards however it preempts states from adopting their own emission standards. This is because the state can adopt their own emission standards as per their convenience and the main purpose of the Clean Air Act to control air pollution from mobile and stationary sources cannot be achieved. The state might take advantage of the preempt and can draw upon new standards for emission as per their convenience.
- The state emissions rules impose on the efforts of the federal government does not address global warming internationally because the standards were imposed only in 2016 wherein the actual EPA’s efforts to control CO2 emissions from motor vehicles kick started in 2009. The issues were not addressed before 2009.
The federal government should regulate GHGs so that it provides statutes for the states to follow for their states. State should adhere to these statutes. Hence, both federal and state should work towards reducing GHG levels in the environment.
3. No, the states should not be granted relief because the states should also strive to control GHG to the maximum extent possible. It is true that each state has different GHG standards however, they are based on the state’s requirement. Hence, the state should and need to adhere to the different GHG standards.
