The Detroit News reports that U.S. District Judge William K. Sessions III rejected automakers' attempt to keep Vermont and 10 other states from adopting California's stricter emission standards. Vermont's brief argued that the Mountain State needs the new standards to protect their maple syrup and skiing industries from the environmental impact of auto-related greenhouse gases. (No mention was made of the environmental impact of these two industries.) The automakers countered that meeting the standards would too costly, if not impossible. Sessions' ruling stated "The court remains unconvinced automakers cannot meet the challenge of Vermont and California's [greenhouse gas] regulations" because they "fail to demonstrate that the regulation is not feasible, given the flawed assumptions and overly conservative selection of technologies documented." Sierra Club lawyer David Bookbinder hailed the decision as a triumph over "another example of Detroit crying wolf." Incidentally, the court's decision was 240 pages long. One wonders how many trees were cut down to publish this ruling.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
I didn’t know judges had to get advanced engineering degrees these days? I bet automakers’ engineers love being told that they are incompetent by someone who doesn’t even understand the lay-terms of efficiency.
Maybe I am niave, but it seems that if there was a way to make their vehicles more efficient, Detroit would be on it like a fat kid on a Twinkie. The fact remains, the isn’t a solution yet, and they are looking down the barrel of legislation that promises to put them out of business unless several breakthroughs happen in short succession.
Is the government researching fuel alternatives and fuel efficiency? I am not being snide, but it seems like something they would be interested in.
I have to agree. Detroit may not be in 1st position in the fuel economy stakes but if it were as easy as some believe, they would have raised their vehicle fuel economy or at least they would be doing it now in the light of the cost of gas/carbon footprint/greenhouse gases et al.
While having judges wrestle with technology related issues often produces a mess, that’s not the case here. VT wants to adopt CA’s pre-existing standards. The problem is the increased costs, and therefore prices, may tip buyers towards other brands who may get it done at less cost.
Maybe the “Super Bee” and other gas hogs that Detroit continues to flaunt so openly has worked against their desired status as “victims” of the upcoming standards.
Meanwhile, you have Honda, who gives you a bigger, heavier Accord with more power and efficiency than the previous model… what do they know that the domestics don’t?
“what do they know that the domestics don’t? ”
Well, engineering for one.
The decision by the judge in this case is not insulting to engineers, it is in fact quite flattering.
In making this decision the judge is basically saying that the engineers ARE smart enough to increase efficiency. Engineers CAN do it and given enough incentive (or regulation) WILL do it.
However engineering is and must be constrained by the laws of economics. The reality is that meeting these regulations will cost money and lots of it. And again there is a chance that in meeting these regulations will produce cars that no one will buy. If anything the judges show a lack of understanding about the auto market, not engineering.
I wouldn’t call the belief that the automakers will do everything in their power to make their cars more efficient naive…but i will say that it’s a bit optimistic.
It’s a simple economic equation. If consumers favored extremely fuel efficient cars more than the gas sucking behemoths, then the automakers would spend the money to make them. but consumers don’t and that’s why the goverment is stepping in and making regulations.
The automakers’ main problem with this new regulation is that it there is no business sense in complying with these regulations. Consumers for the most part (especially in america) really don’t care much for the environment…at least when it comes to purchasing cars. Really there’s nothing special about the automakers’ resistance to this regulation. there is no grand conspiracy to destroy the environment on the automakers’ part (or is there?)
By definition lawful regulation acts outside free market forces…which is the very point of regulation. Any and all business will fight regulation that is to their financial detriment. These lawsuits that the automakers are launching are in a twisted way “required” by fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders.
to paraphrase Mr. Farago “How great is that?”
Well at least you can drive your econobox naked in Vermont!
If Mercedes can deliver an S class that deliver more than 40MPGs then Detroit ought to be able to do the same. Detroit has always resisted change in both safety and economy and if they had their way we wouldn’t even have seat belts. Keep in mind that car makers are just another business whose immediate aims do not extend to the environment or safety beyond what they need to sell the product.
This is where the role of governments are clear – they provide a framework of laws to ensure that the design criteria of these products also includes standards for both safety and economy.
Detroit is just lazy – they don’t want to pay for the R&D. They’d rather keep pushing their current products and invest in lobbyists and PR firms.
It won’t help them – foreign manufacturers are doing the R&D and domestics are not keeping pace. Instead of complaining they should get to work.
carguy: Detroit’s business strategy has been to fight regulation and avoid the R&D they need to be competitive.
If we look back at all the fighting the domestic automakers have done against regulations and the results of those fights…we see that the domestics have had to grudgingly comply with nearly every regulation after court fights.
it’s astonishing that they still continue to do so. Toyota, Honda, etc are surely no fans of increased regulations but their strategy has been mostly to comply and to try and work the regulations to their business gain or at least work to minimize the cost of complying with these regulations.
The results of that strategy I think are clear to all.
It may be that Honda has more, or wider, investment in efficient engine R&D than the “domestics.” Detroit did similar whining in the 70’s instead of doing something about it. Meanwhile, in Japan, Honda came up with the CVCC engine.
I agree with canfood – it seems that automakers (especially Detroit) boo-hoo and claim “it can’t be done!” whenever fuel efficiency or emissions standards are increcreased, but then they’ll pop out a 500+ hp ‘vette.
From a layperson’s perspective, I don’t understand how American engineers could have managed to put a man on the moon 30 years ago but can’t produce an efficient, clean car with decent hp. It isn’t because our engineers can’t do it, it is the fault of the market, and this type of regulation is needed sometimes because the market won’t do what needs to be done because of a lack of understanding of the environmental impact of the ridiculous roadwhales we all insist on driving.
The automakers are right – they’re just meeting market demand. But the automakers are wrong, too – they can make these cars, they have legions of engineers dedicated to making great products. The problem is, they know not enough people will buy efficient cars that aren’t the Prius.
Ummm isn’t this just a question of whether a state has a right to set a stricter standard than the feds?
Whats wrong with that? Why are people questioning the judges engineering knowledge or making it out to be non engineers telling engineers what can or cannot be done?
This is not a question if the stricter standards are feasible or if they are reasonable its simply a question of whether states have the right to set their own stricter standard. Engineering has nothing to do with question.
kazoomaloo: You’re quite right, consumers only choose a product based on the immediate benefit to themselves regardless of any collective negative effect it may have on the rest of society either via environmental damage or safety issues. That is the governments role to put in place standards to ensure that negative side effects are minimized for the rest of its citizens. Consumers never think collectively only individually and every snowflake in an avalanche is by itself not a problem but collectively very destructive.
Nobody likes government regulation but if the only standard that a company had to meet is that they could convince consumers to buy their product then America would not be a very safe or pleasant place to live.
Complaining is all they know how to do. They have been doing it for the last 30 years and I guess think they are good at getting their way. Why would they want to send money to R&D instead of their own pockets.
RyanK02 said “it seems that if there was a way to make their vehicles more efficient, Detroit would be on it like a fat kid on a Twinkie”
Sorry, but have to respectfully disagree. The Detroit 2.8 executives (and that is who make all these decisions) have not yet pulled their heads out of their respective a**es – because.
a) I read recently a 1974 article in Popular Science (or Popular Mechanics maybe) about a prototype hydraulic kinetic energy recuperating system which moved the MPG peg from 16 to 38.4, on a 1974 Ford Granada six (we would call it a hydraulic hybrid system now). The estimated extra cost was $100 per car (about what the extra cost for Ford’s overdrive automatic which was introduced about 5 years later).
b) The Detroit 2.8 were given tons of taxpayer money to develop 80 mpg supercars (i.e. hybrids) by the Clinton administration – which was not bright enough to mandate that if the companies took the money, they had to actually build the cars….
Toyota and Honda did hybrids cars, able to reach real world 50 mpg instead of fantasy 80 mpg.
I’ll take real world 50 mpg over fantasy 80 mpg any day – the fantasy does nothing for my pocket book, the reality of the Prius sitting outside my office does my pocketbook wonders.
I just did a “double check” and calculated the cost of a new 2008 Prius, with 5.2% money, $2000 down, 6 year payoff – vs. a leftover 2007 Kia Optima 4 cylinder, with 2.9% money and 5 year payoff.
Taking the cost of fuel (at $3.20 per gallon – current price) into account, the costs were a wash on a monthly basis.
Figuring that I’ll be selling the 2008 Prius in two years, and figuring the phenomenal resale value of same, I’ll come out ahead with Prius.
Not to mention the fact that crude oil just went over $80 per barrel – and the last time it was even close to this price, gas was $3.66 per gallon, instead of $3.20 per gallon.
Also not forgetting that January 1 2007, gas was $1.99 per gallon, and today it is $3.20 per gallon. What will it be next year?
Conclusion: reality is rapidly changing around us, Honda and Toyota can and are adopting, Ford slightly less so is finally going to bring some hybrid sedans into the fray I hear – but the GM hybrids are just totally pathetic.
A 2 mpg increase between a Malibu 4 cyl. and Malibu hybrid is A JOKE.
GM and Chrysler deserve to die. Like the dinosaurs they are.
Just a Thought. How much of the government research monies over the last 30 years, has ended up in corparate lawyers pockets rather than R & D?
Would it be close the amount the the imports have spent on R&D rather than legal bantering.
” …. if there was a way to make their vehicles more efficient, Detroit would be on it like a fat kid on a Twinkie …. ”
You have been conned. The first rule of improved fuel efficiency is to make the product as light as possible and with the smallest engine which will do the actual job required. Guess what, that means building a marketing strategy around the “Hemi” doesn’t pass muster.
Nobody needs a car with better than 10 second 0-60 times for US use. Period. Sure people want them, but we are all paying more for fuel so that vehicles with far larger engines and far more power potential than is reasonably needed can be lumbering around the roads.
Sticky wide tires which give up to .9g skidpad readings may be fun, but they also reduce fuel economy and cost more to replace. Part of what give a Prius it’s high fuel economy isn’t just the hybrid powertrain, but also the fact that the rest of the vehicle is likewise optimized for efficiently doing the job at hand. The factory tire size on a Prius is 185/65-15, tall narrow and skinny by modern standards.
What happened to the mild hybrid technology GM cautiously released in a few markets for it’s pickup trucks? The system was relatively simple and cheap and was supposed to be good for a 10% fuel economy improvement. For some reason it doesn’t appear to be available on the new GMT900 family of trucks and has never been widely sold. The system as described should have only cost hundreds of dollars to add to the vehicle. What happened GM?
Then there is clean diesel technology. The Europeans and Japanese are all over this. The Detroit Gang doesn’t have a horse in the race.
I could go on and on, but the point is that there is much which can be done to improve efficiency beyond what has been put into volume production today.
I’m confused. What does fuel economy standards have to do with this news article? And what does anything have to do with the judge’s engineering knowledge?
If I’m reading this right, VT wants the cars sold in their state to be the same cars that are sold in California, the largest market in the US.
There is no new engineering here. All they want is what California already gets. You can’t argue that the car companies can’t do it. They already do.
I think the judge is correct. If the citizens of Vermont want California emissions, and are willing to pay the extra costs, then who is Detroit 2.8 to try to tell them otherwise? It doesn’t matter reasons VT has for this. It is their state. They can run it they way they want.
You all have valid points. There are many paths to efficiency, many of which are just now being explored. My only objection is government regulation. I would totally be on board with incentives or credits, but not regulation. When the government gets involved, things generally start circling the drain.
The irony of this situation is that the government is mandating efficiency. That, my friends, is funny.
Strike another blow against the Commerce Clause. Congress has sole authority to establish law related to the sale of goods and services between states. This ruling contradicts that constitutional principle.
It is one thing for Vermont (and California, etc.) to require their residents to only register vehicles that meet certain environmental criteria established by the state because that law does not affect interstate commerce. This is OK because (a) it doesn’t affect any other State’s preferences; and (b) regulates consumption of a standard and otherwise legal commodity rather than its supply. It is an entirely different thing and contradictory to the Constitution to have a State regulate product supply instead of product consumption.
Vermont requires manufacturers to supply vehicles across state lines meeting that are legal in other States rather than regulating the behavior of its residents. The Judge ignores the principle that States regulate their own behavior (10th Amendment) except where the Constitution grants clear authority to the Congress (Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3).
So, while I have no problem with a State making a law regulating the registration or re-registration of vehicles depending on the environmental impact of that vehicle; I have a huge problem with regulating the supply of product for non-State-based manufacturers.
“Boo!” to Clinton nominated Judge William Sessions III for his mushy logic and activism and lack of judicial restraint.
Yet another reason why Federal Judges should have term limits, too.
Vermont does not have the clout (i.e. population) that California does. Maybe Detroit should teach them a lesson and abandon that market and/or charge them a surcharge. Not likely, I know.
@essen 09-13 13:20 — Or maybe just sell the vehicles that meet the requirements of the lawsuit, verbatim, right now. Then, after auto dealers start failing because Vermonters go out-of-state to pick up the vehicles they want; the auto industry can demonstrate that their residents are showing the legislature how dumb a collection of pantywaists they really are.y that can be punished by removing consumer choice.
essen:Vermont does not have the clout (i.e. population) that California does. Maybe Detroit should teach them a lesson and abandon that market and/or charge them a surcharge. Not likely, I know.
It seems to me that many manufacturers already charge a premium for the addition of a California emission control system and it isn’t a big deal to people living in California.
I doubt that Japanese, Korean, or European auto manufacturers will abandon Vermont. But yeah, let those wimpy Detroit surrender monkeys abandon Vermont. That will show ’em. After all, Detroit has already pretty much abandoned the market for well-built sensibly-sized cars and trucks as it is.
The question is, if Detroit abandons Vermont, will anyone in Vermont notice? And by extension, if Detroit abandons the U.S., will U.S. car buyers notice?
Um, but it is a big deal to people in Cali.
They buy less new cars. I will admit that I have no stats on this, but I did live there and from a completely anecdotal standpoint the driving junker percentage was higher than any other place I have ever lived. Only Colorado, which taxes the beans out of new cars, and El Paso which has no rust and a lot of poor people, came even close to the SF Bay area for crummy old autos on the road.
At any rate, I can’t see this as a big deal. They already make the cars for Cali, so just make more, or sell less. What’s the big deal?
One more thing. If Mercedes has a 40 mpg S class available, and that’s what Vermonters want to drive, then let them. Hope they have lots of cash though.