I didn't read this that closely at first, figuring, wrongly, that the Federal Government was stepping in on the basis of some recent development.
But they're not. It looks to me like they've just decided (after, what, 10, 15 years of the ZEV mandate?) that the ZEV mandate is illegal, under Federal law, and that it is an attempted fuel economy standard. 1. *How* is the ZEV mandate a fuel economy standard? The ZEV mandate is the Zero *Emissions* Vehicle mandate. ARB is trying to regulated emissions because the state had (has?) a pressing health matter with emissions. Fuel Economy may be an interesting issue to some of us, but I don't think it was what the mandate was all about. And, if I'm not mistaken, California has a clear and legal exception somewhere allowing it to establish clean air laws that are different than other states. 2. Didn't this confusion, of clean air vs. mileage, form the basis of some of the automaker suits? One could argue that mileage *should* be considered a matter pertaining to clean air, insofar as a car which gets equal emissions per mile and better mpg will have better emissions, and insofar as CO2 (or for that matter H20) could be argued to be an emission. But, basically, the ZEV mandate as originally conceived doesn't really go there, so far as I know. Maybe I'm wrong. Did they stray, in some of their revisions? >``The Energy Policy and Conservation Act provides that when >a federal fuel economy standard is in effect, a state or a >political subdivision of a state may not adopt or enforce a >law or regulation related to fuel economy standards,'' the >department argued. > >In its court papers, the state of California says there is >an exception to the federal Clean Air Act permitting the >state to regulate auto emissions. > >But the Justice filing maintained that Congress has never >authorized California or any other state to enact >regulations related to fuel economy standards. > >California's zero emission mandate, covering an increasing >percentage of new cars and trucks, was to have taken effect >next year, but General Motors Corp., DaimlerChrysler Corp. >and several California auto dealers won a preliminary >injunction that delays implementation for two years.
