EPA Chief's Rationale For GHG Decision Upsets Foes; 'Illogical' Says California's Top Air Quality Official
By John O'Dell February 29, 2008 By Scott Doggett, ContributorEPA 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. That process is permitted by the federal Clean Air Act, which gives California the sole right among states to set its own air quality standards, but permits other states to use California's rules if they want regulations that are more stringent than federal. Before enforcing its own regulations, though, California must first obtain an EPA waiver.
Should California prevail – and it is suing in federal court to overturn Johnson's decision – the global auto industry would likely be forced to boost average fuel economy beyond the federal mandate of 35 miles per gallon by 2020 in order to be able to sell cars in the states using California regulations. Those states account for nearly half the new cars and trucks sold in the U.S. each year.
Johnson initially said – and has often repeated – that he was rejecting California's waiver because climate change is not unique to the California, that the state's tailpipe emissions regulations aren't more stringent than the federal government's, and that it does not face "compelling and extraordinary conditions" that warrant letting it set its own emissions standards.
In his formal decision Friday, however, Johnson says merely that he does not believe the Clean Air Act permits California to enact its own standards for addressing global climate change and that, in any event, he doesn't believe the state is being impacted by global warming in a manner that is "compelling and extraordinary compared to the effects in the rest of the country."
In various parts of his 47-page formal decision, the EPA administrator does say, however, that he believes the effects of climate warming are universally "compelling and extraordinary."
That led an incredulous California Air Quality Board director to denounce the entire opinion.
"It's illogical to say that now the administrator admits that greenhouse gases are a problem -- that the country as a whole is being injured and threatened by this -- but that California and the states that want to do something about it shouldn't be allowed to do so," said CARB Director Mary Nichols, whose board originally sought the EPA waiver.
"I should be pleased, because if this is the best EPA can do to justify their decision denying the waiver, our position is strengthened in the litigation," Nichols said in reference to a lawsuit California filed against the EPA to overturn the decision. "But the fact is we want the waiver now. We don't want it after it's been through the 9th circuit and whatever other appellate courts are going to take a look at it. That's a long, slow, painful way to get to the same result."
Although Johnson has often said he was not pressured by automakers, his written decision repeatedly cites arguments against the waiver that had been presented by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, leading to criticism from environmentalists.
"It reads like something written up in the boardroom of General Motors or a law firm working for car companies," Frank O'Donnell, president of the advocacy group Clean Air Watch, said of the decision.
O'Donnell called the decision "a reprise of an argument that the Bush administration made before the Supreme Court in the recent Massachusetts v. EPA case," in which the court ruled that the EPA must review the impact of greenhouse gases on public health and consider regulating them.
Boxer agreed. The California Democrat said Johnson's decision "is especially disappointing and incomprehensible, because the Administrator's position will not stand up in court, and the presidential candidates have all said they will sign the waiver. It will only result in more delay in cleaning up our air and tackling the challenge of global warming.”
Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., chairman of the House Select Committee on energy Independence and Global Warming, described Johnson's decision as a "violation of state's rights".
LEAVE A COMMENT