Defense begins in emissions trial in Vt.
| ||||||||||
Attorneys for Vermont, which is the target of a lawsuit to block new regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles, began its defense of the policy this week.
Industry representatives rested their case Monday after 10 days of attacking the new regulations, developed in California and adopted by 11 other states. The regulations would tighten controls on emissions progressively through 2016.
In their lawsuit, manufacturers claim the news rules are illegal, too costly, destined to harm workers and possibly even the environment, and certain to deny consumers the chance to buy the vehicle of their choice.
"I'm not sure I'm optimistic about the industry's future in total," said Ronald Harbour, a private consultant testifying for the automakers. "They'll all suffer sales declines because the cost of compliance is so high."
Vermont and its allies in the case — New York state and five environmental groups — argue that the regulations are a legal, reasonable, affordable and necessary step to fight global warming.
State lawyers said in court they have more faith in the industry than manufacturers have in themselves.
"This case is one of optimism vs. pessimism," Vermont Assistant Attorney General Scot Kline said in his opening statement April 10. "Evidence will show manufacturers can comply with the greenhouse gas emissions limits without significant changes in their product plans."
The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court by two of the Big Three auto manufacturers — DaimlerChrysler and General Motors— two trade groups — the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers — and three Vermont car dealerships. Testimony is scheduled to conclude Tuesday.
The lawsuit is the first to go to trial in at least three challenges to the California standards. Litigation is underway in Rhode Island; California is in a pretrial phase.
California's rules require each auto manufacturer to reduce carbon dioxide emissions beginning with the 2009 model year. The first cut would be 1% to 2%, but by 2016 vehicles would have to produce 24% to 34% less carbon dioxide than in 2002, the base year.
The only practical way to comply, the industry has maintained in court, is to increase average fuel economy to 43.7 mpg. One of the industry's main arguments is that federal law prohibits states from regulating fuel economy.
Vermont counters that the regulations are directed at emissions and are explicitly authorized by the Clean Air Act and last month's U.S. Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. In their 5-4 decision, justices said greenhouse gas emissions are an air pollutant and ordered the Bush administration and the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider the regulatory body's refusal to control those emissions.
The first defense witness, testifying Tuesday, said Vermont's efforts won't end global warming but represent the state's attempt to contribute to the fight against climate change.
"When combined with other efforts at the national and international level, these reductions can be significant," state air pollution regulator Thomas Moye testified.
Automaker executives, experts and car dealers have testified that the proposed regulations would devastate the industry. Production costs would soar, they said, as would the price of new vehicles, perhaps by $6,000 or more.
Tens of thousands of workers could lose their jobs, according to their testimony, and vehicles would have to be yanked from showrooms. After all that, the industry contends in its case, the regulations wouldn't be that effective anyway.
David Harrison, a private consultant, testified that the regulations could backfire and harm the environment. People would drive more because their new vehicles get better gas mileage, he said, or they would hold on to their older, more polluting cars to avoid a costly upgrade.
Reginald Modlin, director of environmental affairs for DaimlerChrysler, testified the only car his company would be able to sell in Vermont by 2016 would be a tiny, two-person Mercedes Smart car developed for use in European cities.
"We would try to stay in the market as long as we could, then remove product carefully," he said.
The states that have adopted the regulations are California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.
No comments:
Post a Comment