<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" href="/stylesheets/rss.css"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:trackback="http://madskills.com/public/xml/rss/module/trackback/" xmlns:xcal="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xcal" xmlns:enc="http://www.solitude.dk/syndication/enclosures/">
  <channel>
    <title>Hill Heat: Major Court Ruling Against NHTSA on SUV CAFE Standards</title>
    <link>http://www.hillheat.com/articles/2007/11/20/major-court-ruling-against-nhtsa-on-suv-cafe-standards</link>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <ttl>40</ttl>
    <description>Science Policy Legislation Action</description>
    <item>
      <title>Major Court Ruling Against NHTSA on SUV CAFE Standards</title>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Last week the 9th Court of Appeals issued a &lt;a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/775202DBA504085C88257393007B9729/$file/0671891.pdf?openelement"&gt;90-page decision&lt;/a&gt; in &lt;i&gt;Center for Biological Diversity v. National Highway Transportation Safety Administration/California v. &lt;span class="caps"&gt;NHTSA&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/i&gt; in favor of the plaintiffs. The suit was brought against &lt;span class="caps"&gt;NHTSA&lt;/span&gt;&amp;#8217;s corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for light trucks &amp;#8211; i.e., SUVs &amp;#8211; issued in April 2006, in part for &lt;span class="caps"&gt;NHTSA&lt;/span&gt; claiming that the value of reduced greenhouse gases would be zero. &lt;a href="http://www.nrdc.org/media/2007/071115b.asp"&gt;&lt;span class="caps"&gt;NRDC&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?contentID=7345"&gt;ED&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/releases/pr2007-11-15.asp"&gt;Sierra Club&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=2548"&gt;Public Citizen&lt;/a&gt;, and 11 states and the District of the Columbia joined as plaintiffs.&lt;/p&gt;


	&lt;p&gt;The &lt;span class="caps"&gt;NHTSA&lt;/span&gt; is tasked by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) to set &lt;span class="caps"&gt;CAFE&lt;/span&gt; standards. Its April 2006 ruling raised the light truck standard from 22 to 23.5 miles per gallon by 2010.&lt;/p&gt;


	&lt;p&gt;The court agreed with the states that &lt;span class="caps"&gt;NHTSA&lt;/span&gt; must take into account greenhouse gases, as required by the National Environment Protection Act (NEPA) following the &lt;i&gt;&lt;a href="/articles/tag/massachusettsvepa"&gt;Massachusetts v &lt;span class="caps"&gt;EPA&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/i&gt; Supreme Court decision: &amp;#8220;There is no evidence to support &lt;span class="caps"&gt;NHTSA&lt;/span&gt;&amp;#8217;s conclusion that the apppropriate course was not to monetize or quantify the value of carbon emissions reduction at all.&amp;#8221;&lt;/p&gt;


In addition to agreeing that the agency conducted an inadequate environmental assessment under &lt;span class="caps"&gt;NEPA&lt;/span&gt;, the court found that &lt;span class="caps"&gt;NHTSA&lt;/span&gt;&amp;#8217;s regulations violated &lt;span class="caps"&gt;EPCA&lt;/span&gt; in four key areas, including the &amp;#8220;SUV loophole&amp;#8221; (&amp;#8220;failure to revise the passenger automobile/light truck classifications&amp;#8221;):
&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;span class="caps"&gt;NHTSA&lt;/span&gt;&amp;#8217;s failure to monetize the value of carbon emissions in its determination of the &lt;span class="caps"&gt;MY 2008&lt;/span&gt;-2011 light truck &lt;span class="caps"&gt;CAFE&lt;/span&gt; standards, failure to set a backstop, failure to revise the passenger automobile/light truck classifications, and failure to set fuel economy standards for all vehicles in the 8,500 to 10,000 lb. &lt;span class="caps"&gt;GWR&lt;/span&gt; class, was arbitrary and capricious and contrary to the &lt;span class="caps"&gt;EPCA&lt;/span&gt;. We therefore remand to &lt;span class="caps"&gt;NHTSA&lt;/span&gt; to promulgate new standards consistent with this opinion as expeditiously as possible and for the earliest model year practicable.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Warming Law&amp;#8217;s comprehensive coverage:
	&lt;ul&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://warminglaw.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/11/breaking-9th-ci.html"&gt;&lt;span class="caps"&gt;BREAKING&lt;/span&gt;: 9th Circuit Rules That Feds Must Account for Climate Change&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
		&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://warminglaw.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/11/on-cloud-9th-ci.html"&gt;On Cloud 9(th Circuit) For Thanksgiving&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
		&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://warminglaw.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/11/delights-in-the.html"&gt;Delights in the Details&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
		&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://warminglaw.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/11/nhtsa-cant-have.html"&gt;&amp;#8220;NHTSA can&amp;#8217;t have it both ways&amp;#8221;: &lt;span class="caps"&gt;NEPA&lt;/span&gt; and &lt;span class="caps"&gt;GHG&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
	&lt;/ul&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:39:00 -0600</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">urn:uuid:59c80e1f-3eab-4aeb-a657-c96bd49054bb</guid>
      <author>Brad Johnson</author>
      <link>http://www.hillheat.com/articles/2007/11/20/major-court-ruling-against-nhtsa-on-suv-cafe-standards</link>
      <category>Policy</category>
      <category>CBD v NHTSA</category>
      <category>CAFE</category>
      <category>EPCA</category>
      <category>NEPA</category>
      <category>NHTSA</category>
      <category>Massachusetts v EPA</category>
      <category>enviros</category>
      <trackback:ping>http://www.hillheat.com/articles/trackback/1679</trackback:ping>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
