By Guy Page
Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark is happy that the maker of Dodge Ram pickup truck engines has to pay $1.5 billion for installing a device that avoids detection of excess nitrogen oxide emissions.
But she’s not happy, at all, that Vermont isn’t getting a piece of the pie, financially speaking. In fact, she wants the U.S. Department of Justice and the State of California to delay the settlement until Vermont and seven other states are allowed to plead for what they believe is their share of the payout.
According to industry press reports, the total cost to Cummins, the manufacturers of the engines with the deceptive devices installed, is closer to $2 billion, including both recall expenses and the record $1.67 billion civil penalty. About 600,000 Ram 2500 and 3500 trucks sold over about a decade are involved.
Nitrogen oxide emissions cause smog.
Unlike Clark, California’s attorney general expressed satisfaction with the deal. “Let’s this settlement be a lesson: We won’t let greedy corporations cheat their way to success and run over the health and wellbeing of consumers and our environment along the way,” Rob Bonta said in an Autoblog.com report.
Clark’s press release doesn’t explain why Vermont wasn’t an original party in the complaint leading to the big settlement. The press release appears verbatim below:
Attorney General Charity Clark has led a coalition of state Attorneys General in filing public comments on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) latest vehicle emissions settlement regarding “defeat devices” installed in a group of RAM truck models. These devices cause the vehicles to emit much higher levels of air pollution than permitted by the State’s vehicle emissions regulations, giving rise to a series of consumer and environmental claims against the manufacturer, Cummins Inc. The EPA’s $1.5 billion proposed settlement with Cummins Inc. and the State of California does not include mitigation funds or other relief for many impacted states, including Vermont. Attorney General Clark has requested that the U.S. Department of Justice and California delay entering into the settlement so that Vermont and other states may join the negotiations.
“Let’s be clear: use of these ‘defeat devices’ is not permitted in Vermont. Vermont should be at the table to redress the public health and environmental harms felt by our residents,” Attorney General Clark said. “All of us deserve clean air, and I take Vermont’s role in regulation of pollution seriously.”
Similar “defeat devices” were at issue in the Volkswagen case in 2017, which resulted in a $4.2 million settlement with Vermont for the harms caused by the excess air pollution in the state. Before vehicles can be sold in the U.S., new vehicle models are put through rigorous testing programs run by the EPA and California’s Air Regulatory Board to ensure the vehicles meet the emissions standards. “Defeat devices” allow the vehicles to perform differently under testing conditions than they do on the road, resulting in excess air pollution in our states. Vermont filed public comments on the proposed settlement, requesting that the impacted states have an opportunity to resolve their claims, avoiding with Cummins Inc. the need for follow-up investigations and enforcement actions brought by other impacted states.
Vermont was joined by Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington in filing the public comments last week, which are available here.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Transportation
how many people died from excess nitrogen oxide emissions/// more well fare states looking for a free ride///
The fact that you seem to find a certain number of deaths from excess nitrogen oxide emissions acceptable is repugnant.
It should be obvious that no one should be dying from excess nitrogen oxide emissions when the technology to mitigate those emissions is available. Cummins and Ram sidestepped those regulations with defeat devices and deserve to be punished. Quite frankly, I can’t think of a better way to punish a Corporation then by putting a huge multi-year loss in their bottom line.
That isn’t what mday44yahoo com said. Your other points are valid.
These multi state lawsuits are veiwed as cash cows, and the Vermont A.G.s office looks to California’s A.G.s office as a leader which deserves to be followed one human nose lenght behind, if you get my drift.
Dear AG Clark, Vermont politicians can’t handle giveaway funding. They tend to create more future debt with that funding, because like a child they think it’s a Christmas gift.
Concentrate on the real criminal element in the state that is making it a far less safe and far less enticing state to live in. Concentrate on Constitutional principle, concentrate on your job. Don’t focus on the shiny objects on the Christmas tree.
Our A. G.s office follows California’s every move so closely that I’m very surprised that when California A.G. Rob Bonta announced this action, that A. G. Clark did not did not run into him from behind !
I can see why this was an issue in California, with eight lanes of traffic bumper to bumper for hours, because of PP management of the infrastructure.
So what was Vermont’s harm, or are we looking for another handout, because we can,
no harm no foul……………………………no shame !!
Almost sounds like “gotta have 10% for the BIG GUY” !
I am sympathetic to potential of “excess” emissions but where is the “harm” that is referenced? As with all of these obscene penalties these are never defined. Just another cash cow being milked until there are not more. Then what?
Why so much emphasis on California? Is it a blueprint or something? Marxists will be Marxists.
So what happens if Chrysler declares bankruptcy and completely goes out of business. one less American company. is that what everyone wants?
my bad, I meant Cummins going it of business, by the way many years ago I used to own a vehicle with a Cummins engine, one of the best engines ever.