We don't intend to make a habit of writing about every twist and turn in the Tesla vs. Fisker trade secrets lawsuit, but because of the high level of interest in both of the electric car companies thought we ought to let you know that Fisker is seeking to toss the whole thing into arbitration.

That would take the case out of the courtroom, limit public access and likely result in a sealed settlement. It also could save both sides considerable time and, possibly, money.

Tesla would not comment when contacted today.

Southern California-based Fisker Automotive filed its arbitration request Tuesday in a Northern California court, near Tesla Motors Co. headquarters.

A court hearing has been scheduled for June 11.

Continue reading...

He waited almost two weeks, but Fisker Automotive's Henrik Fisker finally has responded to a lawsuit by electric roadster maker Tesla Motors that accuses him of stealing company secrets.

Didn't do it, he says in a press release issued this morning. Specifically, he called the Tesla suit "nonsense."

We said when Tesla filed its suits last week that it looked like the opening of a new era as formerly cooperative EV developers finally see a market opportunity and begin battling one another for a piece of the pie.

That's born out in Fisker's response to the suit, which doesn't open with the denial but instead with the statement that his company "is on track for delivery of the Fisker Karma" in the fourth quarter of next year.

Only after getting in that little bit of marketing news did Fisker acknowledge and respond to Tesla's suit.

Continue reading...

Henrik Fisker, showing concept car to prospective investors earlier this year.

By Scott Doggett, Contributor

The once-collegial world of alternative-fuel automobiles seems to be entering a new and highly competitive phase as interest in hybrids and electric vehicles grows.

The latest sign that the era of cooperation is ending came Monday as Tesla Motors, maker of the only highway-capable production electric car for sale in the United States, filed a lawsuit against competitor Fisker Automotive, its chief executive, Henrik Fisker,  its chief operating officer, Bernhard Koehler, and their design company, Fisker Coachbuild, for allegedly stealing some of Tesla's design ideas and trade secrets.

A spokesman for Fisker Automotive said today that the company had "no comment at this time."

Continue reading...

On the one-year anniversary of a Supreme Court ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency must regulate greenhouse gases in automobile emissions unless it can provide a scientific basis for refusal, 12 states, three cities and 11 environmental groups on Wednesday petitioned an appellate court to order the agency to act on the higher court's ruling within 60 days.

The petition came less than a week after EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson informed Congress  that he will seek public comment on the implications greenhouse gas rules would have for other agency regulations covering emissions from power plants, factories, schools and many other entities. The move was widely regarded as a stalling tactic to enable the Bush administration to avoid taking steps to establish greenhouse gas regulations. (See earlier story.)

The petitioning states are California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

They were joined by the cities of Baltimore, Md., New York and Washington, D.C., and environmental groups including the Center for Food Safety, Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Defense Fund, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

In addition, the states of Arizona, Delaware, Iowa, Maryland and Minnesota filed briefs in support of the petition.

Scott Doggett, Contributor

By Scott Doggett, Contributor

It appears that the Bush Administration will be out of office long before the Environmental Protection Agency takes any of the steps ordered by the Supreme Court one year ago today in a ruling that said the agency has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in automobile emissions, and cannot sidestep that authority unless it can provide a scientific basis for its refusal.

The 5-to-4 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA was a strong rebuke to the administration, which had maintained that the EPA did not have the right to regulate the heat-trapping gases under the Clean Air Act, and that even if it did, it would not use the authority as a matter of policy.

While the court did not require the EPA to regulate automotive greenhouse gas emissions, it said the only way the agency could "avoid taking further action" was "if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change" or provides a good explanation why it cannot or will not find out whether they do.

With the anniversary of the court's decision only days away, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson informed Congress in a letter last Thursday that instead of acting, he will seek public comment on the implications greenhouse gas rules would have for other agency regulations covering missions from everything from power plants and factories to schools and small businesses.

Continue reading...

By Scott Doggett, Contributor

EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson signed off on a notice Friday finalizing his rejection of California's request for a waiver to the Clean Air Act that would have allowed it and other states to impose their own automotive greenhouse-gas emissions regulations.
 
The formal decision, which reiterates positions Johnson has taken since Dec. 19, when he initially announced his refusal to grant the waiver, was immediately denounced by environmental groups, state officials and Sen. Barbara Boxer, a Johnson foe and chairwoman of the Senate committee that oversees the EPA.

The issue is important far beyond California's borders because 18 other states have adopted or have signaled intent to adopt the regulations California wants to impose.

Continue reading...

By Scott Doggett, Contributor

A number of environmentalists and state officials will testify at an informal federal hearing Thursday in Los Angeles in a bid to bolster support for California's effort to set greenhouse gas emissions standards for motor vehicles sold in the state -- a move the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rejected last month.

But the head of the EPA has turned down an invitation to appear and explain why he rejected the state's effort.

Thursday's hearing, called by Sen. Barbara Boxer, precedes far more formal hearings to be held in Washington by the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, which Boxer chairs, and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, chaired by Congressman Henry A. Waxman. Both are California Democrats.

The Los Angeles session and the two Washington hearings – the Senate session set for January 24, the House session as yet unscheduled -- stem from EPA Administer Stephen L. Johnson's December 19 decision to deny California a waiver from following federal air quality rules.

The waiver would have permitted the state to write its own regulations to reduce global-warming emissions from cars and trucks certified for sale in California beginning with the 2009 model year.

Boxer had hoped to use Thursday's hearing to grill Johnson, who claimed he based his decision on California's alleged failure to meet certain criteria required for a waiver under the federal Clean Air Act.

Continue reading...