California Emissions and the Federal Government

[Standtall]

Denial of State Emissions Plan Was Foreshadowed

By JOHN M. BRODER and MICHELINE MAYNARD
Published: December 21, 2007
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration’s decision to deny California the right to regulate greenhouse gases from vehicles exploded like a grenade here and in California. But it was hiding in plain sight for weeks.

The ruling was foreshadowed in White House letters, floor statements by members of Congress, public arguments from automobile industry officials and hints from the Environmental Protection Agency.

Stephen L. Johnson, the environmental administrator, announced the decision on Wednesday, the day President Bush signed the first major change in vehicle mileage standards passed by Congress in 32 years.

Mr. Johnson said the new law made the proposed California standards unnecessary.

Addressing criticism that the White House had dictated the agency’s decision, Mr. Bush emphasized on Thursday that the ruling had been made solely by Mr. Johnson, a 27-year employee of the agency. Mr. Johnson also said he had acted on his own.

The ruling answered the pleas of industry executives. They reluctantly accepted the fleetwide standard of 35 miles a gallon by 2020, the centerpiece of the energy bill, but feared even tougher rules under the proposed California standard. Those rules would have required a fleet average of 36 miles a gallon by 2016.

Automobile executives specifically cited apprehension over the California rules at meetings in October and November with Vice President Dick Cheney, other top White House officials and influential members of Congress.

The White House, in a letter last week to lawmakers, said the energy bill should set a “single national regulatory standard,” rather than allowing states to set their own rules.

Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat and longtime ally of the auto industry, said in a floor statement that he was voting for the fuel efficiency measure based on assurances that it would not be “undercut” by future rules from the environmental agency on emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide.

The agency’s decision faces legal challenges and Congressional reviews, and a new president could reverse it. But, for now at least, automakers gained something from the administration that they could not have obtained from Congress or the courts.

They have blocked California and other states from creating what Mr. Johnson repeatedly called a “patchwork of state rules” for fuel efficiency and for the carbon dioxide produced by every internal combustion engine.

Under the Clean Air Act, the automakers have for decades chafed under separate, tougher state standards for other tailpipe emissions like those that cause smog.

The industry pushed for the new ruling as part of its overall lobbying on the energy bill, which also calls for a huge increase in ethanol and other biofuels over 15 years.

In meetings in October with Mr. Cheney and sessions with White House staff members, auto executives made clear that they were concerned not just about the fuel economy measures in the bill but also about the California proposal for stricter emissions standards.

California developed rules in 2004 to reduce tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants that scientists say contribute to global warming. The state applied to Washington in December 2005 for a waiver from the Clean Air Act to let it apply the tougher standards. Eventually, 16 states joined the application for the exception.

Since 1970, such waivers have been routinely granted more than 50 times involving tailpipe pollutants that foul the air in some states more than in others. But none faced the political atmosphere surrounding the California proposal, which dealt with a gas that affects the world climate, not that of a particular state.

The environmental agency had two hearings on the waiver and received more than 100,000 comments. Insiders said the technical and legal staffs at the agency were never asked for formal analyses of the California plan, and no documentation was released with the ruling, as has been routine in waiver cases.

Senator Barbara Boxer, the California Democrat who leads the environment committee, said she believed that the administration never intended to grant the state’s request. Ms. Boxer said Mr. Johnson refused to meet her on the question and evaded questions about White House pressure at a hearing before her panel.

She said the signing of the energy bill on Wednesday provided Mr. Johnson convenient timing and a rationale to reject the waiver.

“They used the energy bill — I’d say misused it — as a way to justify what they wanted to do all along,” Ms. Boxer said.

Other lawmakers and environmental advocates expressed suspicion that the decision had been made weeks or months ago and pointed to White House statements raising questions about the fuel-economy measure as it moved through Congress.

The White House expressed concerns that the bill did not clarify the relative roles of the environmental agency and the Transportation Department, which regulated mileage rules.

A White House official, speaking on background last week, said it was critical that the new standard not be supplanted by a new program from the environmental agency or the states.

“If Congress says they have to meet 35 by 2020, that’s what it should be,” the official said. “Not what it should be until someone says it’s something different.”

Although the California rule would have addressed just emissions of heat-trapping gases, it would in effect be a fuel economy standard, because the main way to cut emissions is to cut fuel use.

Auto company executives told the White House and sympathetic members of Congress that they feared that the fuel economy standards and the California waiver would force them to reduce emissions and raise fuel economy on a faster timetable than the energy bill that became law.

“We had California, and we had all these other issues colliding into that,” said a senior auto company official who insisted on anonymity. He called the California situation “one of our worry beads.”

Executives at two companies said they did not know the precise timing of the decision until Wednesday afternoon, when the White House made courtesy calls to members of Congress.

John M. Broder reported from Washington, and Micheline Maynard from Detroit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/wa...ns.html?ref=us

Interesting topic, maybe.

Should the Federal Government have the right to stop a State Government from imposing more stringent laws?

At first glance, I would think the answer is no.

Anyone think differently?

[2pac Shakur]

Absolutely NOT, but it is consistent with recent trends of growing fed authority.

[Standtall]

Originally Posted by 2pac Shakur

Absolutely NOT, but it is consistent with recent trends of growing fed authority.

You make a good point. I may have to reconsider.

[2pac Shakur]

It's good when the feds pass a bill like this:

Tomorrow we look forward to, hopefully, passing -- the President signing the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. That bill will be voted on for final passage in the House later today. In January, the President announced his 20-in-10 initiative, a comprehensive plan for a more secure, cleaner energy future, which would reduce our consumption of gasoline by 20 percent over 10 years. He has pushed Congress to pass this legislation all year. And the bill would increase fuel economy and expand the use of renewable fuels; it will save billions of gallons of fuel, expand our energy security and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0071218-2.html

However, apparently when a state tries this, it can be TOO MUCH of a good thing.

[Listeria]

California Emissions

That's just gross.

[2pac Shakur]

Reminds me of another case:

The nation's fledgling ethanol industry is readying for expanded production following the Environmental Protection Agency's June 12 denial of California's request for a waiver from the federal government's reformulated gasoline (RFG) oxygen requirement.

U.S. grain producer associations, which have fought the waiver request, have commended EPA's action.

“After more than two years of uncertainty on this issue, NCGA applauds the Bush administration for reaching the correct decision on the waiver,” said National Corn Growers Association President-elect Tim Hume, a grower from Walsh, Colo.

http://southeastfarmpress.com/ar/far...waiver_denied/

Bush is an a-hole.

[Rickson]

You should all know by now that when the guberment gets involved everything gets to much better! So now CA emissions will be great!

[douglan]

this pesky constitutional government of ours!

[4sigma]

I agree that the feds have got this one wrong. I really don't follow their constitutional basis for denying CA the right to pass laws regulating tailpipe emissions. Interstate commerce?

Mind you, I'm a bit skeptical of the "global warming" hysteria. It's not at all clear to me that CA's law is a good and necessary one. But the role of the federal government isn't to veto stupid state laws. If states are passing stupid laws, voters are supposed to elect new state representatives. (Or move to a different state.)

[2pac Shakur]

Originally Posted by douglan

this pesky constitutional government of ours!

The Constitution gave the feds this power?