CARB Seeks to Maintain Stringency of California’s Vehicle Standards

Emmett Institute submits public comment in support of CARB’s efforts

Back in the halcyon days of 2012 when EPA, NHTSA, California, and the automakers crafted a grand bargain to adopt national vehicle emission standards, California agreed that compliance with vehicle emission standards adopted at the federal level would be “deemed to comply” with California’s standards.

Vehicles crossing the Golden Gate Bridge (ItsaWaB, pixabay)

Now, as it becomes clear that the federal government intends to go forward with its legally indefensible plan to significantly weaken those standards, CARB is considering rulemaking to ensure that California’s standards will continue to generate the emissions reductions necessary to protect Californians’ health and welfare.

Today, Ann Carlson, Cara Horowitz, Sean Hecht, and I submitted a comment letter to CARB in support of actions to maintain the current stringency of California’s vehicle emission program in the face of attempted weakening at the federal level.

California’s suite of vehicle emission standards, dubbed the Advanced Clean Cars program, substantially reduces emissions of both criteria pollutants and GHGs. These emissions reductions are crucial to meet both the state’s overall GHG reduction goals and to attain state and national health-based ambient air quality standards. Maintaining the current stringency of California’s vehicle emission program is essential to California’s ability to reduce emissions as required by both state and federal law.

, ,

Reader Comments

2 Replies to “CARB Seeks to Maintain Stringency of California’s Vehicle Standards”

  1. EPA – Trump Team Wanted to Kill Agency Authority on CO2:

    “………Trump administration officials had a plan to pull EPA climate regulations out by the roots.

    One month after President Trump’s inauguration last year, then-EPA official David Schnare sent an email with a document that laid out a strategy for reconsidering EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding for greenhouse gases, the scientific determination that underpins federal climate change rules, according to documents released to E&E News under the Freedom of Information Act.

    The President has no faith in the 2009 finding, believes regulation under that finding is inappropriate, has directed reconsideration as a primary element in his EPA Action Plan, is expected to direct reconsideration in his forthcoming executive orders on climate, and is expected to direct EPA to grant any petitions seeking consideration…….”

  2. President Trump Has Broken the Spell of Climate Change Mania:

    “………..In the case of the Paris process, he has succeeded almost without trying. The answer to the question, “Which major country in the world has most successfully reduced its CO2 emissions?” is, “The United States of America”. US emissions hit a 25-year low last year. This success has nothing to do with the UN caravan, which has rolled on for 30 years, or, indeed, with Mr Trump. It has everything to do with the shale revolution – the triumph of much cleaner fossil fuels. Energy prices are falling.

    By contrast, the greenest of the great economic powers, Germany and Japan, have poured money into renewables. They are consuming more coal than before, however, with Japan planning 36 new coal-fired power stations over the next 10 years. Since renewables are not reliable (because of intermittency), Germany must have more coal or lie prostrate before Mr Putin and his gas. Both Germany and Japan are increasing their carbon footprint because they have run away from nuclear. Energy prices are rising. China, after a slowdown, is increasing its CO2 emissions fast once again.

    As for “Paris”, this is failing, chiefly for the reason that poorer countries won’t decarbonise unless richer ones pay them stupendous sums. The amount supposedly required to do this, agreed at the Copenhagen conference in 2009, was $100 billion a year, every year, from 2020; but no mechanism could be devised to compel the poor countries to restrict their emissions. At yet another conference in the process, in Bonn last month, the parties broke up without agreement on handing the money across. It is almost impossible to imagine real agreement, because it would be unenforceable.

    If you look back, you can see that Copenhagen was the first ebbing of climate panic. Gordon Brown, then prime minister, told us that we had “50 days” to avoid catastrophe. Prince Charles warned delegates that “our planet has reached a point of crisis and we have only seven years before we lose the levers of control”. President Barack Obama, burnished by his freshly awarded Nobel Peace Prize, flew in. Yet all these great men failed to persuade the wretched of the earth to abandon their right to economic growth. “With your pens, you can write our future,” said HRH. The developing countries had the wit not to sign all the same………..”

Comments are closed.

About Meredith

Meredith Hankins is the Shapiro Fellow in Environmental Law and Policy at UCLA School of Law for 2017-2019.…

READ more

About Meredith

Meredith Hankins is the Shapiro Fellow in Environmental Law and Policy at UCLA School of Law for 2017-2019.…

READ more

POSTS BY Meredith