Auto emissions standards belong to Washington

The real question being considered by a federal judge in Vermont this week was where the nation's automobile standards should be set, in Washington or California.

While we normally applaud any move that gives power to the states, Judge William K. Sessions III got it wrong. Auto emissions, greenhouse gas limits and fuel economy standards correctly belong to the federal government. Not only do we all breathe the same air, the auto industry is a vital, and apparently underappreciated, cog in the national economy.

Sessions ruled that California's emissions standards, which were copied by 13 other states, including Vermont and Utah, were legal. It was a curious decision, considering the federal Environmental Protection Agency has yet to decide whether to grant California a waiver for its standards. No state, including Utah, can put the new standards into effect until such a waiver is granted.

The new standards would require automakers to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 30 percent, with a deadline of 2016. The ruling follows a Supreme Court decision last April that gave the EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as air pollutants.

As it has whenever new standards are considered by Congress, the auto industry used a lot of hyperbole to protest the new requirements. They insist that technological difficulties make it impossible to reach these goals, meaning they effectively won't be able to sell vehicles in the 14 states that adopted them.

The situation isn't so dire. U.S. automakers have been slow to enact any meaningful reforms that make their products more environmentally friendly. There are, however, costs involved.

To cut tailpipe emissions, automakers will have to greatly increase fuel economy. That generally means making lighter cars, which can compromise power and safety. Extra safety features would be required, raising the cost of the cars. In recent congressional debates over raising fuel-economy standards, even the federal government conceded a 35 mpg requirement would cost the industry $110 billion more in research and development.

Why not pass requirements that would require $110 billion to be used to produce better hybrids or vehicles that work on other alternative fuels?

Consumers have consistently demonstrated they don't like weak-performing vehicles. They aren't likely to go for wimpier vehicles that operate on the same old oil and gas.

Washington ought to be the place to push the industry into the future and to clean the environment for all states. For only a handful of states to impose tough standards makes no sense.