BCT Editorial – 9/24/06

This page was last updated on September 25, 2006.

So goes the nation; Editorial; Beaver County Times; September 24, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“State’s adoption of tougher auto emissions standards doesn’t make it a misfit

[RWC] Gee, what a shock. The editorial supports regulations already supported by 10 other “blue” states.

“Don’t get too bent out of shape about the state following California’s lead by adopting new air-pollution standards that will require new cars to be cleaner-burning, requirements that are tougher than the federal government mandates.

“If a lawsuit now working its way through the courts is upheld, California’s requirements will be the national de facto standards.

“It’s a matter of economic clout.”

[RWC] While this is a possible outcome, the editorial ignores the obvious. CA auto emission standards have always been stiffer than federal regs yet the CA regs didn’t become “the national de facto standards.” If they had, the PA EQB would not have had to take its ill-advised action.

“On Tuesday, the state Environmental Quality Board adopted the Golden State’s standards. It’s not as if Pennsylvania is going out on a limb and sawing it off. The Associated Press reported the action, which still requires one more round of regulatory review, would make Pennsylvania the 10th state to tie its standards to California’s.

“For now, the standards are expected to have little or no impact on the price of cars or trucks or the way they drive. That could change, The AP reported, if California wins a pending legal fight with automakers over proposed reductions in greenhouse gases for 2009 models. Those standards are expected to increase new-vehicle prices.

“Why should Pennsylvania adopt California’s standards? One reason is obvious: They will reduce smog-producing emissions and make it easier for the commonwealth to comply with federal clean-air standards.

“But what the state is doing is laying the groundwork for what will be inevitable if California wins its case against the automakers. That’s because of the size of California’s economy. Its GDP is so big that it would rank in the top 10 of national GDPs.

“If it wins its case, automakers will have one of three options: produce two sets of vehicles, one for the California-standards states and the other for the rest of the country; ignore the car and truck markets in the California-standards states; or produce California-standards vehicles for the entire nation.”

[RWC] Automakers already employ a mix of these options for existing standards. Good research, Times. <g> Seriously, though, do Times editorial writers perform any research?

“Obviously, the third scenario is the most likely, especially if you look at the states Pennsylvania has joined - New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maine, Oregon and Washington.”

[RWC] Hmm, all “blue” states. Is anyone surprised?

“Keep this in mind the next time you hear short-term politicians and others talking about how terrible this will be for Pennsylvania. It won’t be. When it comes to auto emissions, as goes California, so goes the nation.”

[RWC] Has a Times editorial ever found a regulation it didn’t like?