Is EPA Playing Dirty With Clean Air Law?

Schwarzenegger, Others To Sue Agency Over Its Denial Of Stricter Auto Emissions Rules

(CBS/AP)  The old axiom goes, "Lead, follow, or get out of the way."

Critics are saying the Environmental Protection Agency has added another option: "Trip up."

Several states are now talking about suing the EPA because of its rejection of a strict auto emissions law set to be enacted by California and 16 other states, rules which would have required cleaner cars beginning two years from now.

Under the Clean Air Act, California is allowed to have stricter clean air laws than the federal government. Other states are also allowed to adopt California's stricter regulations than the federal rules.

With 10% of all car purchases in the U.S. made in California, the state represents a sizable market for U.S. and foreign car companies. And with other states signing on, the new emissions law would have covered approximately 45% of the U.S. auto market.

The law would cut pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and fuel consumption.

And California wasn't going it alone: 16 states were ready to adopt California's standards, including Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont and Washington.

However, the EPA had to agree to the new law by issuing a waiver. And the EPA said "no."

EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson announced Wednesday that, without waiting for a finalized written statement by the agency's technical and legal staff, he had declined California's request.

Referring to the energy bill which Congress recently passed and which the president signed into law, Johnson said, "The Bush Administration is moving forward with a clear national solution - not a confusing patchwork of state rules - to reduce America’s climate footprint from vehicles."

It was the first time California had ever been denied a waiver when asking to enact clean air rules that were cleaner than federal rules.

Johnson said that, unlike other waivers issued in the past for pollutants impacting local and regional air quality, California's current request for emissions whose effects are "fundamentally global in nature" was rejected because it did not “meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.”

The Los Angeles Times now reports that Johnson overruled his own staff's findings in denying California's waiver, after agency staff had argued unanimously that the Golden State had met all of its requirements.

California Air Resources Board Chairwoman Mary Nichols was one source cited by the paper as saying EPA staff informed her that they had been overruled by Johnson.

The Los Angeles Times also suggested that correspondence from auto manufacturers, and pressure possibly linked to meetings held last month between executives from Ford and General Motors and Vice President Dick Cheney which were first reported by the Detroit News, may have influenced Johnson.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vowed to fight back. "I am extremely disappointed by EPA's decision to block the will of millions of people in California and 16 other states who want us to take tough action against global warming," he said in a statement.

"EPA's denial of our waiver request to enact the nation's cleanest standards for vehicle emissions is legally indefensible and another example of the failure to treat climate change with the seriousness it demands."

Schwarzenegger announced that the state will sue EPA to overturn the ruling as quickly as possible. "I have no doubt that we will prevail because the law, science and the public's demand for leadership are on our side.

"Anything less than aggressive action is inexcusable," he said.

Automobile manufacturers sued to prevent the California law from taking effect, arguing that they could not alter production to meet the demand in time. The Bush administration joined their case, claiming the EPA should not regulate carbon dioxide - a major greenhouse gas - because it believed CO2 is not a pollutant.

In April the Supreme Court rebuked the Bush administration, saying that the Clean Air Act does give the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars.

In September, a federal district court judge rejected the automakers suit brought before a Vermont court. And earlier this month, another federal judge tossed the automakers' suit in California. "Given the level of impairment of human health and welfare that current climate science indicates may occur if human-generated greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated, it would be the very definition of folly if EPA were precluded" from regulating greenhouse gases, Judge Anthony Ishii wrote.

It seemed that California and the other states were on the verge of moving forward. But shortly after President Bush signed the new energy bill, Johnson announced there would be no waiver.

The Energy bill, which President Bush originally threatened to veto, raised car fuel efficiency standards for the first time in 32 years, and marked a defeat for automakers who had vigorously opposed raising fuel economy in the past.

California's regulations would have required a 30-percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions in new cars and light trucks by 2016, with the first cutbacks starting in 2009.

The new federal regulations would result in somewhat smaller reductions of greenhouse gases - 10-23% by 2030 - and would require automakers to achieve an industry-wide standard of 35 miles per gallon four years later than the California law, in 2020.

California's law would also apply to all vehicles - unlike federal rules which separates cars and trucks under different categories.

Johnson said that the new federal fuel efficiency ratings (known as Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards) mean that states need not adopt competing standards.

"There is much greater environmental benefit of 50 states abiding by this new law [than] one or two or twelve or seventeen," he said.

But other states adopting California's law means there would be only two standards, no matter how many states opt in. And those states are opting to join with California in fighting the EPA.

[antiglobal]

I have to agree with Inventagod. There is never a "national solution" that works as good as it looks on paper. With California leading the way, and 16 other states already on the band-wagon, why shouldn''t we get all 50 states to agree to stricter standards? Considering how polluted California''s air already is, I''ve been kind of shocked that they were the first state to take a stand against Global Warming. I''m even more shocked that Schwarzenegger is going against his entire party to fight for stricter emissions regulations. Hopefully in 2008 (or sooner) a far better president will be elected that won''t be just another pawn in the oil/car industry''s global monopoly scheme.

[inventagod]

A ''National Solution'' is most always a big lie. Nothing ever really happens except at the local level. The EPA is acting as the enforcement arm of Bu$h''s petro-machine. Seems like the oil industry protects the auto industry, and today - the EPA spoke for them both...

The EPA should be required to deport all illegal aliens. While they are in the US they breath out carbon dioxide billions of times per day. Once back in the developing world they can breath freely. As we know CO2 emissions from China, India, Mexico, etc don''''t really count. The world is like a swimming pool that allows urination in only half of it.

Posted by downsteamjim: CO2 doesn''t hover in a great cloud over the country that emits it. And emissions from EVERY country count. When Kyoto was first put together, the economic growth of China and India was just a dream for them. Now it''s a reality, and we''re all able to see what damage it does. We all need to stop pointing fingers at the other guy and take responsibility for OUR actions.

[brianbwb-2009]

Ironic, that Arnie had the popularity to be governor no matter which party he chose, he chose to become a Repubican. Now he acts as if he is dissatisfied that a publicly popular position is rejected by his "party".

It may very well come to pass that "the Collectinator" will collect his hush money from the oil and auto industries, then you will soon hear no more about his dissatisfaction.

[downsteamjim]

The EPA should be required to deport all illegal aliens. While they are in the US they breath out carbon dioxide billions of times per day. Once back in the developing world they can breath freely. As we know CO2 emissions from China, India, Mexico, etc don''t really count. The world is like a swimming pool that allows urination in only half of it.

[pepperp1]

The answer is yes, just like they placed Calif on the ropes when ENRON was wrecking havoc on their State embessling their emergy dollars to subvert their duley elected Govoner, if they wnat to play victim to Bush Cheney again what can we do, their sitting duks the clean air act gives them every right they should ingore Bush and implement their standards let Bush try to stop them. It is time all good women and all good men get off the fence and take back governance from this patsy. And get rid of Issa he is dragging the State down for partisan hackery.

[micma-2009]

To reflect their new mission under his leadership, Bu$h has decided to change the name of the agency from the EPA to the BOPA(Big Oil Protection Agency).

[mrtracker]

This is typical. The Federal government ignores the will of the states, the will of the people, and even their own experts. The corporate interests are more important.

The system is broken, and I''ll be very surprised if congress does anything but pretend to be on the side of the people.

[pepperp1]

What bunk, Calif has this has the right to set this standard get some balls Arnold call the Bush bluff implement the change let him try to sue your State the Clean Air Act is clear.

People wake up your not stupid, you are competent, there is no discussion dont be Bush stooge victim again ignore him he is just a donor pasty not king We the People are the government and it is you and yours who will die when those seas rise and this planet burns with heat. You let him and his hood wink you and drive your real governor out of office with a shell game orchestrated by Ken Lay and get rid of that Izza creep at the same time..

[closethippy1]

Once again everything is meant to be the opposite with Bush and his ilk. War is peace, dirty is clean, protect the Constitution by ignoring it, torture is not torture, etc.
These folks are there to be a pain in the behind and they''re loving every minute of it. They belong to the upper class and so the US belongs to them more than anyone else.
2008 is going to be one long, long year.

[usurhead]

Are those of you that argue against California''s position actually serious? Or, are you just trying to stir up some controversy? Who is doing whose dirty work? Can you read? 16 states, the entire staff of the EPA, and the Supreme Court of the United States vs. one bureaucrat (can you say, "Heck of a job, Brownie"?) & the brilliant cry babies in Detroit, who have demonstrated their competence by driving America''s industrial base straight into the ground, AGAIN! (Doesn''t anybody remember the 1970''s?)

These same Detroit CEO%u2019s, who have cost tens of thousands of your fellow citizens their jobs, who have devastated entire US cities, all while taking hundreds of millions of dollars in executive pay at %u2013 thanks to the GOP %u2013 significantly lowered tax rates; these are the guys you%u2019re siding with? Are you seriously defending the position of an administration that attempted to argue - with a straight face - that C02 is not a pollutant?

Read. Think. Figure it out, and quit being a patsy. These people who have you duped into believing their horse pucky, who have you believing and arguing as if their nonsensical "values" are somehow in league with your own, are not working in your best interests - they''re using you like pawns!

[usurhead]

Are those of you that argue against California''s position actually serious? Or, are you just trying to stir up some controversy? Who is doing whose dirty work? Can you read? 16 states, the entire staff of the EPA, and the Supreme Court of the United States vs. one bureaucrat (can you say, "Heck of a job, Brownie"?) & the brilliant cry babies in Detroit, who have demonstrated their competence by driving America''s industrial base straight into the ground, AGAIN! (Doesn''t anybody remember the 1970''s?)

These same Detroit CEO%u2019s, who have cost tens of thousands of your fellow citizens their jobs, who have devastated entire US cities, all while taking hundreds of millions of dollars in executive pay at %u2013 thanks to the GOP %u2013 significantly lowered tax rates; these are the guys you%u2019re siding with? Are you seriously defending the position of an administration that attempted to argue - with a straight face - that C02 is not a pollutant?

Read. Think. Figure it out, and quit being a patsy. These people who have you duped into believing their horse pucky, who have you believing and arguing as if their nonsensical "values" are somehow in league with your own, are not working in your best interests - they''re using you like pawns!

[jon2012-2009]

California just needs to do what they need to do within their state, but they dont have the guts, they have to have someone else do their dirty work, IE can not reduce their use of gas now, but make the auto manufactures make changes that may help in ten years.
Posted by me97581 at 07:30 AM : Dec 22, 2007

Climate change is at least also a public health issue, if you''re not aware. The increasing concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is by itself harmful to the health of the human population in addition to the other chanllenges of adapting to rising temperatures around the world.

Californians were among the first to ban smoking in the workplace and public areas, weren''t they? That is an example of state government policies that work to reduce the rates of smoking and protect nonsmokers from exposure to carcinogens from cigarette smoke. If you seriously argue the same could have been accomplished by having the people of California show their "guts" to smoke less on their own, you''re full of it. And if you think the federal government will do anything to help Californians pay for the costs of providing medical care for Californians sickened by tobacco, you''re not living on this planet.

[brianbwb-2009]

Is image so important to people that we can''''t get past it to start conserving and doing our part to curb the control of the oil business? Or are we so content to sit behind our tv clicker and moan because the government''''s not accomplishing it?
Posted by RowdyTexan2

Sort of like those who continue to advocate that our soldiers continue to die in Iraq, not for any real reason, but only to show that "we don''t cut and run"...

Actually, the people have been so down trodden that other than the fuel required for necessary travel, not much more can be saved, and if we could manage it, they would simply raise the price of gas again.

Any real change will be a radical one, forced by the imminent collapse of the US economy, with the attendant anarchy, unless we can start right now to implement radical changes in a controlled fashion, mass targeted boycotts, etc...

[rowdytexan2]

I applaud the states for taking the issue in their own hands, when the oil business is lobbying the feds to keep gas guzzlers on the road.

It''s as important to address the country''s dependence on oil. Setting a standard on gas consumption does that. Does a person that lives within a mile of work and only hauls themself really need an 8 cylinder doolie to get there? Is image so important to people that we can''t get past it to start conserving and doing our part to curb the control of the oil business? Or are we so content to sit behind our tv clicker and moan because the government''s not accomplishing it?

[me97581]

Poor MCVet he can not post without calling someone names. My post had nothing to do with states rights or big government, but the California attutude that they must force there problems on the rest of the country. California just needs to do what they need to do within their state, but they dont have the guts, they have to have someone else do their dirty work, IE can not reduce their use of gas now, but make the auto manufactures make changes that may help in ten years.

[spargle]

to Beehive21 - yeah, all that clean air and clean water, safe food - so tiresome! We would be better off like in the olden days when chemical industries ran amok and were able to dump their pollutants wherever and whenver they pleased right? Spread pesticides everywhere and kill off everything that moved or grew. That worked so well. Love Canal, cancer clusters, the Hanford site?? Like Reagan said - they''ll regulate themselves.. HAHAHAHAHA

[mcvet]

EPA,DEA,cost lots of $$$ to the taxpayers,lets us abolish both these runaway monsters,they appear to no longer be in tune with the universe at everyones expense.how do we terminate , stop feeding is the EPA and DEA today..Bush is not the problem he started neither .Hopefully his legacy is ,to help rid the USA of DEA and the EPA.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by beehive21 at 09:07 PM : Dec 21, 2007
+ report abuse

The DEA I can agree with but the EPA is ABSOLUTELY necessary or the Corporate People will NEVER clean up anything...

[mcvet]

California can reduce their emmisions anytime they want without effecting the rest of the nation, all they have to do is outlaw any personally owned car or truck with over a 4 cylinder engine. If they had the guts to do this California could immediately reduce their polution and the rest of us would not have to pay for the increased MPG mandated to the auto manufactures.

Of course no politician would keep their job, so they have to force someone else to do their dirty work.


Posted by me97581 at 01:22 AM : Dec 22, 2007
+ report abuse

Now you Nazi''s are the FIRST one''s on the "States Rights" Bandwagon when you can do the Toe Tappin Business on the simple minded Red Necks, but let a State want to improve the lot of all the people and you Nazi''s suddenly turn into "Big Government" People. I''ve come to the conclusion that you are about whatever it takes to get YOUR way and the rest of us be damned. Sieg Heil Bush!!

[me97581]

California can reduce their emmisions anytime they want without effecting the rest of the nation, all they have to do is outlaw any personally owned car or truck with over a 4 cylinder engine. If they had the guts to do this California could immediately reduce their polution and the rest of us would not have to pay for the increased MPG mandated to the auto manufactures.

Of course no politician would keep their job, so they have to force someone else to do their dirty work.