Hill Heat: Major Court Ruling Against NHTSA on SUV CAFE StandardsScience Policy Legislation Actiontag:www.hillheat.org,2005:TypoTypo2007-11-27T08:49:59-05:00Brad Johnsonurn:uuid:59c80e1f-3eab-4aeb-a657-c96bd49054bb2007-11-20T14:39:00-05:002007-11-27T08:49:59-05:00Major Court Ruling Against NHTSA on SUV CAFE Standards<p>Last week the 9th Court of Appeals issued a <a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/775202DBA504085C88257393007B9729/$file/0671891.pdf?openelement">90-page decision</a> in <i>Center for Biological Diversity v. National Highway Transportation Safety Administration/California v. <span class="caps">NHTSA</span></i> in favor of the plaintiffs. The suit was brought against <span class="caps">NHTSA</span>’s corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for light trucks – i.e., SUVs – issued in April 2006, in part for <span class="caps">NHTSA</span> claiming that the value of reduced greenhouse gases would be zero. <a href="http://www.nrdc.org/media/2007/071115b.asp"><span class="caps">NRDC</span></a>, <a href="http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?contentID=7345">ED</a>, <a href="http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/releases/pr2007-11-15.asp">Sierra Club</a>, <a href="http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=2548">Public Citizen</a>, and 11 states and the District of the Columbia joined as plaintiffs.</p>
<p>The <span class="caps">NHTSA</span> is tasked by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) to set <span class="caps">CAFE</span> standards. Its April 2006 ruling raised the light truck standard from 22 to 23.5 miles per gallon by 2010.</p>
<p>The court agreed with the states that <span class="caps">NHTSA</span> must take into account greenhouse gases, as required by the National Environment Protection Act (NEPA) following the <i><a href="/articles/tag/massachusettsvepa">Massachusetts v <span class="caps">EPA</span></a></i> Supreme Court decision: “There is no evidence to support <span class="caps">NHTSA</span>’s conclusion that the apppropriate course was not to monetize or quantify the value of carbon emissions reduction at all.”</p>
In addition to agreeing that the agency conducted an inadequate environmental assessment under <span class="caps">NEPA</span>, the court found that <span class="caps">NHTSA</span>’s regulations violated <span class="caps">EPCA</span> in four key areas, including the “SUV loophole” (“failure to revise the passenger automobile/light truck classifications”):
<blockquote><span class="caps">NHTSA</span>’s failure to monetize the value of carbon emissions in its determination of the <span class="caps">MY 2008</span>-2011 light truck <span class="caps">CAFE</span> 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. <span class="caps">GWR</span> class, was arbitrary and capricious and contrary to the <span class="caps">EPCA</span>. We therefore remand to <span class="caps">NHTSA</span> to promulgate new standards consistent with this opinion as expeditiously as possible and for the earliest model year practicable.</blockquote>
Warming Law’s comprehensive coverage:
<ul>
<li><a href="http://warminglaw.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/11/breaking-9th-ci.html"><span class="caps">BREAKING</span>: 9th Circuit Rules That Feds Must Account for Climate Change</a></li>
<li><a href="http://warminglaw.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/11/on-cloud-9th-ci.html">On Cloud 9(th Circuit) For Thanksgiving</a></li>
<li><a href="http://warminglaw.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/11/delights-in-the.html">Delights in the Details</a></li>
<li><a href="http://warminglaw.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/11/nhtsa-cant-have.html">“NHTSA can’t have it both ways”: <span class="caps">NEPA</span> and <span class="caps">GHG</span></a></li>
</ul><p>Last week the 9th Court of Appeals issued a <a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/775202DBA504085C88257393007B9729/$file/0671891.pdf?openelement">90-page decision</a> in <i>Center for Biological Diversity v. National Highway Transportation Safety Administration/California v. <span class="caps">NHTSA</span></i> in favor of the plaintiffs. The suit was brought against <span class="caps">NHTSA</span>’s corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for light trucks – i.e., SUVs – issued in April 2006, in part for <span class="caps">NHTSA</span> claiming that the value of reduced greenhouse gases would be zero. <a href="http://www.nrdc.org/media/2007/071115b.asp"><span class="caps">NRDC</span></a>, <a href="http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?contentID=7345">ED</a>, <a href="http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/releases/pr2007-11-15.asp">Sierra Club</a>, <a href="http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=2548">Public Citizen</a>, and 11 states and the District of the Columbia joined as plaintiffs.</p>
<p>The <span class="caps">NHTSA</span> is tasked by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) to set <span class="caps">CAFE</span> standards. Its April 2006 ruling raised the light truck standard from 22 to 23.5 miles per gallon by 2010.</p>
<p>The court agreed with the states that <span class="caps">NHTSA</span> must take into account greenhouse gases, as required by the National Environment Protection Act (NEPA) following the <i><a href="/articles/tag/massachusettsvepa">Massachusetts v <span class="caps">EPA</span></a></i> Supreme Court decision: “There is no evidence to support <span class="caps">NHTSA</span>’s conclusion that the apppropriate course was not to monetize or quantify the value of carbon emissions reduction at all.”</p>
In addition to agreeing that the agency conducted an inadequate environmental assessment under <span class="caps">NEPA</span>, the court found that <span class="caps">NHTSA</span>’s regulations violated <span class="caps">EPCA</span> in four key areas, including the “SUV loophole” (“failure to revise the passenger automobile/light truck classifications”):
<blockquote><span class="caps">NHTSA</span>’s failure to monetize the value of carbon emissions in its determination of the <span class="caps">MY 2008</span>-2011 light truck <span class="caps">CAFE</span> 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. <span class="caps">GWR</span> class, was arbitrary and capricious and contrary to the <span class="caps">EPCA</span>. We therefore remand to <span class="caps">NHTSA</span> to promulgate new standards consistent with this opinion as expeditiously as possible and for the earliest model year practicable.</blockquote>
Warming Law’s comprehensive coverage:
<ul>
<li><a href="http://warminglaw.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/11/breaking-9th-ci.html"><span class="caps">BREAKING</span>: 9th Circuit Rules That Feds Must Account for Climate Change</a></li>
<li><a href="http://warminglaw.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/11/on-cloud-9th-ci.html">On Cloud 9(th Circuit) For Thanksgiving</a></li>
<li><a href="http://warminglaw.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/11/delights-in-the.html">Delights in the Details</a></li>
<li><a href="http://warminglaw.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/11/nhtsa-cant-have.html">“NHTSA can’t have it both ways”: <span class="caps">NEPA</span> and <span class="caps">GHG</span></a></li>
</ul>