Federal judge dishes huge blow to cities that mandate all-hybrid taxi fleets for clean air.

It shouldn't even say that. Writing the law that way presupposes that hybrid technology is necessary and sufficient for good air quality and fuel economy. If that's the target, then write the law with air quality and fuel economy standards. A hybrid tank is still a tank.

Tom

 

A word of caution, we need to read the original rulings. A newspaper article finds 'low hanging fruit' and this article pretty much quoted the plaintiffs . . . those opposed to hybrids. Often reading the original rulings gives insights that a plaintiff lawyer won't volunteer.

Then there is the problem of good intentions implemented badly. It happens and without reading the background information, the court rulings, we're flying blind.

Bob Wilson

 

Specific to taxi fleets, in the US the market is corrupted by a system that disconnects the person who chooses the vehicle, from the person who pays for fuel. When this is the *same* person, like in BC Canada, hybrids take over for economic reasons.

 

Yep. That, or tax the fuel.

 

GOOD POINT!!

Let the fare reflect actual fuel costs and the problem is rapidly solved.

Bob Wilson

 

Agreed.

But even then, unfortunately, such laws might be successfully challenged.

Last year a federal judge struck down New York City's law setting fuel economy standards for new taxis which essentially only hybrids would meet. The judge reasoned or held that air quality and fuel economy standards were something for the federal government to decide.

This year Mayor Bloomberg tried tax incentives and tax penalties, and the same judge struck those measures down -- saying that they amounted to the same laws that he had struck down last year.

 

Maybe if the city just charged for the cab license fee proportional to the amount of fuel used. Then they are simply collecting a "carbon tax". The cab operators can still choose which cars they want, but their wallets may push em towards hybrids.

 

Unfortunately, the law in question (49 USC 32919) is broadly worded. It will take a change in the law, IMO.

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/49C329.txt

 

The Supreme court has more than once invalidated both legislation as well as lower court interpretations of the law(s).

Boo, it seems like these Fed judges are in error, and appeals may follow. After all, weren't the old CARB standards set years ago, much higher than Fed emission standards ... and didn't that issue go before the Fed Supremes? ... Yet due to whatever compelling interest the Supreme court looked at, the Supremes ruled in favor of CA State/CARB's higher standards even though the Fed legislators clearly meant to set (lower) national emission standards.

I doubt this will be the end of the matter ... rather the beginning.

.

 

CARB won the case because that was explicitly written into the statute. It's a completely different case, legally.

While overturn is theoretically possible, I wouldn't bet on it. SCOTUS probably won't even take the case unless two appeals circuits reach opposing conclusions.

 

Not sure what you mean by, "it was written into the law". So maybe you can elaborate ... what was written into what statute?

Regarding, "CARB won the case" - the automakers were originally the Plaintiffs that sued to enjoin CARB from enforcing higher emission standards (in CA) since the Feds purposed to set lower nation-wide standards. The Supreme Court ultimately (and indirectly) reversed the CARB issue ... not to nitpick. It was via a collateral case in 2007 (549 U.S. 497), Massachusetts v EPA where the Fed supremes gave wider latitude to state emission reg's when the Fed's simply sit on their hands and do nothing to regulate emissions.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf

It's not the 1st time, either. I almost think higher courts enjoy 'smacking' the lower courts. Judges get gun shy after a while too ... because judges want to get reappointed / reelected ... & when your superiors go and reverse the lion's share of your dumb decisions you won't get reelected. Don't forget, the makeup of the Fed supremes are essentially of the same mind set as they were back when they granted permission to CARB to set its emission standards. So we'll see. Granted ... as constipated as the judiciary is, it'll take years.

 

Generally state statutes on such things cannot weaken the Federal statutes. However, local jurisdictions frequently enact regulations that exceed Federal or other minimum requirements in other things.

I'm not an attorney and not familiar with the particular law in question, but the reasoning is suspect. Municipalities generally have some authority to control what types of vehicles are allowed to operate on their streets...even banishing them altogether, plus they grant business licenses so I don't see why they couldn't dictate what vehicles the businesses were allowed to use or where under their licenses. Since the businesses had until 2015 to comply the hardship complaint is bullshit.

Since the city is not directly controlling emissions, only limitating what specific business classes can use under existing Federal/state emissions statutes I doubt the judge's interpretation.

Conservatives should be all over this one as a case of Federal "Judicial Activism" overriding local authority.

 

Being from NYC, I wish there were better emission controls on diesel buses and trucks. The particulate matter these throw off is noticeable. NYC has started to operate a large number of hybrid city buses. If nothing else, they do seem quieter. As far as cabs go, the Crown Victoria is starting to lose it's grip. Maybe 20 percent of the fleet are ford Escape hybrids. Another 10 percent are other hybrids. Very few Prius cabs.

 

In Adelaide you can only use a 6 cylinder car as a taxi, how sucky is that?
Almost the entire taxi fleet here runs on LPG.

 

Hmm,,

Sounds like the cities need to change their licensing costs based on the grams of CO2 that the car emits. This way there will be a reconnect back to the Taxi owners....