Yes, you're not seeing things; the headline of this post is accurate. But there is a twist, as the WSJ's Dana Mattioli reported yesterday afternoon:
In a letter today, two senior Republicans on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform asked the panel’s chairman, Henry Waxman (D., Calif.), to investigate whether top EPA staffers either violated federal rules that restrict regulators from lobbying, or “misused their positions to surreptitiously influence” EPA’s decision on whether to allow California to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions from vehicles.
Reps. Tom Davis (R-VA) and Darrell Issa (R-CA) are mad at Margo Oge and Christopher Grundler, the senior EPA officials tasked with evaluating California's waiver request and (unsuccessfully) telling Administrator Stephen Johnson that he had no choice but to grant it. Congressional oversight of that decision revealed that the pair subsequently provided former EPA Administrator William Reilly-- at Reilly's request-- talking points for arguing the waiver's merits to Johnson. Davis and Issa argue that this deserves the same level of scrutiny that Waxman devoted to a surreptitious plan to lobby Congress and governors against the waiver-- Johnson may have also been a target, but he could not recall whether that was the case-- concocted last summer by Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters, White House officials, and industry lobbyists.
This actually isn't the first time that congressional Republicans have gone after Oge and Grundler. During a hearing that followed the revelation of the Reilly memo and other EPA documents, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) asked Administrator Johnson whether his employees had violated the Hatch Act. Johnson, to his credit, defended their actions, saying that he has "always encouraged my staff to give me candid and open advice" (he just reserves the right to ignore it, even when phrased as a clear mandate and not simply advice, and the resulting fallout severely alienates staff unions).
Rep. Waxman responded to the letter by pledging to give it "careful consideration," but noting that the Committee had "found no evidence that EPA career staff lobbied members of Congress with respect to [California’s request]" (translation: the Davis-Issa analogy to his previous investigation is bunk). For his part, Reilly, who ran EPA under the first President Bush and granted California several waivers, has said that his communications with career staff who served under him were not unprecedented, let alone improper or illegal.
Recently, Senator Barbara Boxer(D-CA) got wind of EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson's plans to bring a "substantial number of EPA staffers" on a work-related to Australia next month-- and in the process leave a whole lot of worries behind, which Boxer euphemistically refers to as "certain important matters" that he'll be unavailable to testify before Congress about. TPM Muckraker's Paul Kiel provides a useful summary of the matters (which should be familiar to Warming Law readers) on which Johnson might want to avoid Congress, adding that he was unable to get EPA to comment and that Boxer's office understands that the trip is scheduled to last at least two weeks. Boxer is clearly exasperated in the letter she wrote to Johnson yesterday, placing it in the context of EPA's already-scarce budget and noting that he ought to be looking a bit closer to home:
If your goal is to learn about actions to address global warming, I suggest that you visit California, which has moved ahead aggressively with greenhouse gas controls. I invited you to testify in January in California on global warming pollution from vehicles, but you declined.
Still, even though no one should envy Johnson's task of spinning the administration's indefensible delaying tactics during a month that will include Earth Day, the anniversary of Massachusetts v. EPA, answering Rep. Henry Waxman's (D-CA) subpoena, and other political and legal landmines, it seemed a bit too predictable that Johnson would leave the country to avoid these kinds of predictable issues alone. Something else, in other words, had to be up his sleeve.
Enter today's letter to Reps. Ed Markey (D-MA) and James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. Johnson, following up on his most recent testimony about the aftermath of Mass. v. EPA-- and repeating its greatest-hits list of the bogus excuses it provided for refusing to issue the necessary endangerment finding for CO2 emissions-- announced that he'll be issuing an "Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" (ANPR) later this spring to study industry's concerns the issue, and will follow up with a public comment period. Rep. Markey was not pleased, to say the least:
Congressional Democrats are now trying to move legislation that would overturn the EPA's anti-scientific decision which denied California a waiver to regulate their own tailpipe emissions. Arnold Schwarzenegger is suing the EPA. It seems that the only group of people who aren't on board with this policy are Republican members of Congress.
Most GOP members of the state's congressional delegation are siding with the Bush administration in trying to keep states from imposing stricter regulations on greenhouse gas emissions than the federal government. Without bipartisan support from the state's representatives, the bill's proponents say, the measure's prospects are dim.
"I don't support California thinking that it can act alone effectively," said Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista), noting that climate change is a problem that extends beyond state lines.
A House bill to allow California and other states to implement their own tailpipe regulations was introduced last week, with the support of 27 of the 33 California Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco. Only two of the 19 Republicans -- Rep. David Dreier of San Dimas, who is perhaps Schwarzenegger's closest ally in the delegation, and Rep. Mary Bono Mack of Palm Springs -- signed on as cosponsors.
In addition to Issa, John Campbell, Kevin McCarthy, George Radanovich, Devin Nunes and Wally Herger are quoted, all saying a variation of how global warming is a big problem and we have to have a unified solution. Of course, 18 other states are signing on to California's lawsuit, representing a majority of the population who actually wants to do something abut climate change.
I really think this has the potential of politically isolating the GOP. It's notable that Dreier and Bono Mack understand that their districts are becoming more purplish, and that they need to stay out in front of them. But the combination of hypocrisy among the state's rights crowd and being on the wrong side of popular opinion (most California Republicans favor granting the waiver) and scientific rationality could make for a powerful wedge. We know that people are finally starting to drive less. Utilities are starting to block production of any and all coal-fired power plants. And there's a growing recognition that this is a public health issue as much as it is an environmental issue. Those who are standing in the way of renewable projects, alternative energy solutions, and yes, government mandates to solve the problem are dinosaurs. At the Congressional level, I believe this vote will resonate in November.
Incidentally, if you want to see some of that post-partisan leadership in action, check it out:
Schwarzenegger spokesman Bill Maile said the governor supports the legislation. By allowing California to implement "the nation's toughest tailpipe regulations," he said, "it will help us achieve our aggressive goals to reduce greenhouse gases." But a number of California Republicans in Congress say that they have yet to hear from Schwarzenegger or his office.
• If you're interested in helping Barack Obama but aren't flying to Ohio or Texas like Brian and Julia, the Obama campaign is urging supporters in California to make phone calls into Texas this weekend. MoveOn is also running Yes We Can parties on Saturday and Sunday.
• Let's not give the Governor a heap of credit just yet for accepting the Legislative Analyst's suggestions to close billions of dollars in tax loopholes. According to the Sacramento Bee he ran away from this proposal within a matter of hours.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger told business leaders Thursday he supports a proposal by nonpartisan Legislative Analyst Elizabeth Hill to rescind $2.7 billion in tax credits, but he later softened that stance and said he doesn't necessarily support all of her recommendations.
The Governor will be in Columbus this weekend for the Arnold Classic, an annual bodybuilding and fitness event, so if you get a minute, Juls, you can go ask him about this yourself!
• Tired of being bashed with the facts over the past several weeks, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson has come out swinging, defending his decision to deny the California waiver to regulate tailpipe emissions on the grounds that global warming is a global problem. Which means, of course, we need to do less to fight it. Also today the EPA turned over documents related to their decision, months after they were requested.
• On a somewhat different note, I'm interested in this protest by the environmental justice community against cap-and-trade solutions such as what is promised in California as unfair to low-income communities, which are disproportionately affected by polluting industries that would be able to buy their way into continuing to pollute those areas.
EJ groups, long overlooked in the more mainstream environmental movement, fear that climate legislation will once again disregard the concerns of the communities who are already most affected by the factories and refineries responsible for global warming. In a cap-and-trade system, poor communities, where polluting plants are most often sited, will still bear the brunt of impacts if industries are allowed to trade for rights to pollute there. Instead of this system, they're advocating a carbon tax, direct emissions reductions, and meaningful measures to move America to clean, renewable energy sources.
"[C]arbon trading is undemocratic because it allows entrenched polluters, market designers, and commodity traders to determine whether and where to reduce greenhouse gases and co-pollutant emissions without allowing impacted communities or governments to participate in those decisions," says the statement.
I think it's a powerful argument, and something the environmental movement has to seriously consider. If we're going to allow polluting industries to pollute, there will be an adverse affect. How do we deal with that?
• In yet another reason why we should not allow the continued consolidation of media, new LA Times owner Sam Zell has now taken to the airwaves, blaming the coming recession on... Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama talking about the coming recession. Yeah, shut up already! This is the owner of the largest paper in California requesting what amounts to censorship, incidentally.
• Finally, a federal judge in San Francisco today lifted the injunction on the Wikileaks website, which allowed whistleblowers to post documents and anonymous information about government and corporate malfeasance. A win for the First Amendment and the public interest.
Sen. Barbara Boxer's digging into documents on the decision by the EPA not to issue a waiver to California so we can regulate tailpipe emissions is bearing some serious fruit. The EPA staff went to great lengths to try and persuade the Bush lacky Steven L. Johnson not to overrule them and precedent and deny California the right to reduce greenhouse gases in our state. LAT:
Some officials at the Environmental Protection Agency were so worried their boss would deny California permission to implement its own global-warming law that they worked with a former EPA chief to try to persuade the current administrator to grant the state's request.
That unusual effort was revealed by documents released Tuesday by congressional investigators probing whether EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson was swayed by political pressure when he decided not to allow California to enact vehicle emission standards stricter than the federal government's.
They actually even supplied him with talking points to lobby Johnson with. (flip it)
Hoping to further ratchet up pressure on EPA Adminstrator Stephen Johnson regarding California's waiver denial, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has now released additional transcriptions of internal agency documents her EPW committee staff was able to view. David Roberts has posted some initial thoughts on the highlighted contents-- including a plea from EPA staff to Johnson indicating that if he couldn't grant the waiver at least temporarily, "...you will face a pretty big personal decision about whether you are able to stay in the job under those circumstances."
Even more interesting to us, from a legal perspective, is the following excerpt from that same set of talking points, which is played out repeatedly in the 27 pages of documents transcribed and released by Boxer (added emphasis ours):
• [It is obvious] that there is no legal or technical justification for denying this. The law is very specific about what you are allowed to consider, and even if you adopt the alternative interpretations that have been suggested by the automakers, you still wind up in the same place.
That last sentence is critical, as it bears out the reality that Johnson lacks the administrative authority and legal justification to reintepret the law as he has here. Internal emails and presentations consistently indicate that Johnson's ultimate ruling was wrong and unprecedented along three key lines of argument:
Several developing developments to close out your week today.
The Dump Denham folks are turning in 50,000 signatures in support of the effort. Just over 31,000 valid signatures are required to qualify. Seems that we should start getting geared up for this one.
Rep. Waxman is continuing the agitation on the California EPA waiver, dropping subpoenas for documents reviewed by the EPA before rejecting California emission regulations.
Sacramento Bee's Ed Board weighs in on the double bubble trouble and is none too pleased with Los Angeles County's screwy ballots or acting Registrar Dean Logan. (full disclosure: I work for the Courage Campaign)
55 people were indicted over welfare fraud that snagged millions in a scheme centered around fake child care facilities in and around Los Angeles.
Speaking of Los Angeles, I'll be there tomorrow for no particular reason and with nothing particular to do. Or as Bran Van 3000 says
But we did nothing, absolutely nothing that day, and I say:
What the hell am I doing drinking in L.A. at 26?
I got the fever for the flavor, the payback will be later, still I need a fix.
Grist's David Roberts has posted the actual transcript of last night's GOP presidential exchange on California's clean cars standards, and a quick look reminds us of something critical that we failed to note in our excitement that the Bush administration is now isolated on this legal point.
All of the candidates did express support for California's right to take action, with varying degrees of enthusiasm (as per the Detroit News, Mitt Romney is desperately trying to reconcile his answer with earlier remarks implying that he wanted preemption language in December's energy bill). But none of them, including the front-runner in an active position to do something about it, spoke out (nor, to be fair, were they asked) about lifting a finger to overturn EPA's decision before 2009.
All things considered, Senator Barbara Boxer's bill declaring the waiver granted (which now has 21 co-sponsors, and growing each day) is a fairly modest piece of legislation-- one that Senator McCain should have no problem getting behind, if he's not intending to already. It's one thing to answer a general question posed before a national television audience (and, as McCain joked in his response, with Governor Schwarzenegger's physically-imposing frame nearby), though its a great thing; it's another to really do something about it.
So Barbara Boxer is not sitting on her heels waiting for a new President, she's acting boldly to reverse Stephen Johnson's horrible EPA decision blocking California from regulating tailpipe emissions.
Senate environmental committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has introduced a bill that would overrule EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson and instruct him to grant California's waiver.
Right out of the gate, it's got bipartisan support. Cosponsors include Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Joseph Lieberman (ID, CT), Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Edward Kennedy (D-MA), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Christopher Dodd (D-CT), John Kerry (D-MA), Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Susan Collins (R-ME), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Barack Obama (D-IL), and Robert Menendez (D-NJ).
It was fairly certain that litigation would reach the same result, or that a Democratic President would order the EPA to reverse the decision. But that would take quite a while, and in the interim, the climate deteriorates even further.
Shortly before Stephen L. Johnson was sworn in by President Bush as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, he gave the president a towel symbolizing a New Testament passage in which Jesus washes his disciples' feet. The towel, given to graduates of Johnson's alma mater, a small evangelical college, symbolizes a life of Christian service.
Like the president, Johnson is a deeply religious man who says he relies on his faith in his work. Johnson prayed and spoke gratefully of early-morning prayer sessions held in his government office in a promotional video filmed there for an offshoot of a worldwide Christian ministry.
We'll see if Boxer can get what would be a needed 67 votes to overcome a Bush veto. But good for her for trying to accelerate the process.
To be completely honest, while I expected a long hearing today, I didn't quite realize it was going to entail over four hours of testimony and fourdistinctlivebloggingthreads. A lot of stuff there to process, and Hill Heat (which also live-blogged part of the hearing over at Daily Kos), Think Progress, and TPM Muckraker all spotlight key highlights (the latter two with the assistance of somewhat-hillarious video clips), as David noted in his earlier post here.
At the end of the day, though, EPA Administrator Johnson's rationale was best summed up in one of his exchanges, a little after noon, with Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). Observing that Johnson had responded to a prior question by saying that California's vehicle emissions standards were not needed "in my opinion," Whitehouse flatly stated that the law is pretty clear that he can't substitute his preferences for California's policy judgment. A bit flummoxed, Johnson fell back once again on the argument that the Clean Air Act lets him decide whether California has met its conditions.
In other words, Johnson was saying that yes, he can essentially do as he pleases in terms of interpreting Section 209 of the Clean Air Act. I point to my earlier post on this subject: while he may indeed have some amount of deference provided, it has to be within reason:
This argument for strong deference to the Administrator's reading of the act (usually we'd say "agency deference," but it's now clear that the rest of the agency isn't at all with him) is right along the lines that our own Tim Dowling anticipated-- and debunked as unlikely to stand up in court in this case-- after the waiver was denied. EPA staff seem to have convincingly laid out why, under the law, the waiver should be granted and anything to the contrary wouldn't fly. Johnson's assertion that the Clean Air Act lets him instead impose his policy preferences entirely novel reading of the Act is simply shaky.
Sure, Johnson said today, things like precedent, 99% supportive public comments and his staff's unanimous opinions weigh on him (though by the way, many of those public comments looked to him like a "card-writing campaign" designed to draw him into a "popularity contest"-- the nerve of those people, and the tens of thousands we're told have already emailed to protest his decision!). But at the end of the day, in his incomplete legal judgment, it's his independent decision to decide that there weren't "compelling and extraordinary circumstances" for a waiver because global warming is different and is a worldwide pheonomenon, and that's all there is to it.
Do check out Sean Siperstein at Warming Law's liveblog of today's events in the Senate Environment Committee, where Barbara Boxer and others made EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson squirm for quite a while this morning.
The background, including Boxer's finding that the EPA staff favored the granting to California of the waiver for them to regulate tailpipe emissions, is here and here. More on today's session is here and here, including the hilarious admission that the EPA used duct tape to redact documents about their decision-making process.
BOXER: Colleagues, this is the tape, this is the tape that was put over - finally the administration had a way to use duct tape. This administration, this is what they did to us. They put this white tape over the documents and staff had to stand here. It's just unbelievable. [...]
I mean what a waste of our time. This isn't national security. This isn't classified information, colleagues. This is information the people deserve to have. And this is not the way we should run the greatest government in the world. It does not befit us. So that's why I'm worked up about it and think we have been treated in a very shabby way.
Even Lieberman was laying into Johnson on this one. What an embarrassment.
Late on Friday, the EPA delivered a box of hard-copy documents about the California waiver denial from to Senator Barbara Boxer, theoretically meeting her past-deadline demand for disclosure in advance of Thursday's Senate hearing. The catch, as per the Associated Press-- many documents were either missing or contained numerous redactions. In a letter from Deputy Administrator Christopher Bliley, EPA invoked executive privilege regarding executive deliberations and attorney-client communications, claiming above all that a failure to restrict public release of the documents would have a "chilling effect" on agency decisions [...]
Boxer had threatened to subpoena the agency if it did not turn over the waiver documents. She said she would continue her quest for all the information. Boxer aides said the agency's offer to show her the redacted information privately was not satisfactory.
Apparently 16 pages of a 43-page Power Point presentation were completely blank except for the titles - one of which said "EPA likely to lose suit."
Sen. Boxer is extremely angry about this dodging of federal oversight, calling it "an insult to the American people and a dereliction of duty." There's a hearing about the EPA waiver denial in the Senate Environment Committee scheduled for Thursday, and the Chief Administrator Stephen Johnson will be there. Insofar as Senate committee hearings are must-see TV, this will be one of them.
When we last left EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, his agency was facing a lawsuit from California and over a dozen other states over his failure to grant a waiver allowing tailpipe emission regulation. It was fairly clear that this decision was wholly political and in no way matching the scientific studies inside the EPA; Johnson's staff was unanimously opposed to the decision. Last week, Sen. Boxer chaired a field hearing in Los Angeles to investigate what was behind the denial of the waiver. Johnson failed to attend. This is from an email:
California Attorney General Jerry Brown, California Air Resources Board Chair Mary Nichols, the Sierra Club's Carl Pope, the NRDC's Fran Pavley, and Congresswoman Hilda Solis all appeared as witnesses. Unfortunately, one chair at the briefing was noticeably empty: the seat we reserved for EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson.
Clearly, EPA Administrator Johnson does not want California and 18 other states to implement California's higher emission standard for automobiles -- a key part of our fight against global warming -- but the public deserves to know why. We can't let Administrator Johnson hide the truth from the American people.
At the hearing, Attorney General Brown called on Boxer to subpoena Johnson and all of the relevant documents that went into the decision. Boxer is planning a hearing on January 24th with the EPA Administrator, and she's attempting to use public pressure to get Johnson to release the documents. She's asking supporters to forward Johnson this email (over):
Buried in Friday's LA Timeswrite-up of Barbara Boxer's California-waiver hearing is a development that bears mentioning, courtesy of California AG Jerry Brown's oral testimony:
The outcome of the tailpipe issue may be determined by the next administration, said Brown, who added that he had written the presidential candidates to ask their positions on the waiver. All the Democrats support California's position, but only one Republican, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), answered Brown's letter in the affirmative.
Testifying Thursday, Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, urged Californians to focus on the Feb. 5 primary and demand that all candidates endorse the waiver.
Pope, who reiterated that point on his personal blog, is absolutely spot-on here in a way that goes beyond even his call to action (more on that after the jump). It's no coincidence that Hillary Clinton made a point of blasting EPA's decision during a campaign speech over the weekend, and that Barack Obama had previously spoken out against it. Standing up for California is a win-win-win move that allows candidates to demonstrate a commitment to mitigating climate change and growing the economy in the process (the rationale that Clinton used), fealty to the rule of law and freedom from undue corporate influence (which featured in Obama's December 20 statement responding to the waiver ruling), and respect for the states' historic roles as "laboratories of democracy."
This shouldn't be something that requires too much pressure, either-- it's more of a basic legal test for anyone, of either party, that wants to serve as our chief constitutional steward. That Ron Paul, who is not generally seen as a climate champion but has assiduously rooted his campaign in respect for the rule of law, is alone on the GOP field for now is appalling. Perhaps that will change once the Michigan primary passes and candidates don't feel an urgent need to pander to the auto industry, and as California citizens, and influential fellow Republicans weigh in. (Note that Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, which joined California's lawsuit against the EPA last week, is often mentioned as a potential running mate for leading contenders.)
(always great to have DMI cross-posting their stuff here from Tort Deform. - promoted by Julia Rosen)
California is pressing on in its challenge against the EPA for turning down its proposed emissions rules, adopted by 12 other states and supported by three more as well. ( NYT, BBC) The proposed standards would provide tighter protections to the public against the harmful effects of vehicle emissions on the environment, an issue screaming in its relevancy these days.
"An analysis released by state air regulators showed their 2004 tailpipe regulation would be faster and tougher than the federal fuel economy rules... By 2016, California's standard would reduce the amount of carbon dioxide that vehicles produce by 45.4 million metric tons a year in California and the 12 other states that have already adopted the rules. That's nearly double the 23.4 million metric tons the report forecast would be cut under the federal fuel-efficiency standards, according to the analysis, which was based on EPA air pollution modeling."
But the EPA said "no thanks" to this proposal, preferring its apparently looser standards to California's plan. This is the EPA's "first time denying California a waiver under the Clean Air Act since Congress gave the state the right to obtain such waivers in 1967," according to the NYT.
The EPA's decision has been described as a victory for the auto industry. Automakers opposed the California rules as too strict, saying they would "reduce their selection of vehicles and raise prices in states that adopted California's standards." So in other words, it's better to have a ton of cheaper cars to choose from, regardless of how badly they're polluting the air we breathe.
Now if that ain't like driving off a cliff in a brand new beemer, I don't know what is...
For formality's sake, here are some (I hope, not too annoyingly obvious) thoughts on why this lawsuit a) is important and b) further demonstrates the importance of our civil justice system as a means for checking corporate/government cronyism and the bad policies that are produced as a result:
Tort "reformers" argue that if aggrieved individuals and groups want things to change, they should change the rules of the game through legislation. First they say, "So sue me!" But if they actually get sued, they insist that the issue is better suited for the legislature than the courtroom. They paint this picture of whiney, attention-seeking plaintiffs making an overblown fuss about corporations letting off a wee bit too much smoke for their overly sensitive, air-greedy little lungs. (Geez, people can get so dramatic about their ability to breathe.)
But here's what's interesting in this scenario: there are clearly no whine-bags here. Here we have a bi-partisan effort, which legitimately went through the legislative process and was signed by the Governor. We have standards that have the support of at least 15 other states. Yet this effort was obstructed by the government agency charged with protecting our environment, although in the past the EPA has granted California's waivers to impose stricter environmental standards.
This situation demonstrates clear as day how important it is to have a strong civil court system dedicated to administering justice to the public. In addition to the legislative process, we need our civil justice system as a means of providing public oversight of the federal government when its decisions conflict with the public's interest and/or with our cherished democratic process.
According to the NYT, Schwarzenegger said that EPA officials ''are ignoring the will of millions of people who want their government to take action in the fight against global warming.'' This lawsuit is California's way of saying "We refuse to lose something we need and treasure--a right to a healthier environment--without a good fight." Several other states are expected to join California in its claim.
Well I say sue on, Cali. Your day in court is ours, too.
Today the state of California joined with 15 others to sue the federal government over the EPA's decision to deny the granting of a waiver to the state to regulate their own greenhouse gas emissions under Fran Pavley's 2004 tailpipe law. The odds are absolutely in favor of California winning this lawsuit. Never since the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970 has the EPA ever denied such a waiver, and the legal justifications are extremely cloudy. However, the government has succeeded in delaying implementation, which is really all they've set out to do. So expect this to be a long and drawn-out fight that will probably not be resolved until after the choosing of a new President in November.
The Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday signaled it is prepared to comply with a congressional request for all documents - including communications with the White House - concerning its decision to block California from imposing limits on greenhouse gases.
The EPA's general counsel directed agency employees in a memo to preserve and produce all documents related to the decision including any opposing views and communications between senior EPA officials and the White House, including Vice President Dick Cheney's office.
The documents should include "any records presenting options, recommendations, pros and cons, legal issues or risks, (or) political implications," said the all-hands memo from EPA General Counsel Roger Martella Jr.
They're saying that now, of course, but David Addington hasn't gotten his hands on the memo to use his red pen.
The presiding committee in the Congress on this one is Henry Waxman's House Oversight Committee.
Happy New Year, Fourthbranch. We got you Henry Waxman.
"California met every criteria . . . on the merits. The same criteria we have used for the last 40 years on all the other waivers," said an EPA staffer. "We told him that. All the briefings we have given him laid out the facts."
I wonder how the EPA Administrator could have been swayed to go against science, the moral imperative of mitigating the effects of global warming, the duties outlined in his job description... Fourthbranch!
On multiple occasions in October and November, Cheney and White House staff members met with industry executives, including the CEOs of Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler. At the meetings, the executives objected to California's proposed fuel economy standards:
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.
The Federal Energy Bill ended up being a bait and switch. In exchange for the increase in fuel efficiency, the automakers got their pound of flesh, the denial of that waiver.
Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown went right to work Tuesday, preparing to sue the federal government "at the earliest possible moment" for the EPA's denial of a waiver to let California implement Fran Pavley's AB1493, the law regulating auto tailpipe emissions that was to begin with model year 2009. The regulations, which sought to control greenhouse gases and not just boost auto efficiency standards, would have had the effect of an increase in MPG to roughly 43, far above the 35MPG by 2020 just mandated in the federal energy bill. Indeed, the EPA in its decision noted the passage of the energy bill as a reason to deny California's request, claiming that there should be one standard and that the new bill pre-empted California's authority. So much for state's rights conservatives.
The lawsuit is about as close as you can get to a slam dunk. The case law is already enormously in favor of California. They have been granted every waiver they've ever requested from the EPA since the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1963, and the "compelling and extraordinary conditions" of the state's topography, climate, and number of cars on the road has always been specifically cited. That hasn't changed. In addition, federal lawsuits in California and Vermont have upheld the standards set out in AB1493 as fully legal. And just this year, the Roberts Supreme Court has ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that the federal government can regulate greenhouse gas emissions, writng that:
"Judged by any standard, U.S. motor-vehicle emissions make a meaningful contribution to greenhouse gas concentrations."
Sadly, it's true that the Bush Administration probably has the ability to put up enough of a fight in the courts to make implementation virtually impossible so long as he remains in office. And so this is likely to come down to a decision for the next President to make. So you would think that the media, knowing this, knowing the potential of global warming to impact all of our lives, would bother to ask a question about it. But so far in 2007, out of 2275 questions asked of the Presidential candidates on the Sunday chat shows, 3 mentioned global warming. Here's a news peg, Russert, Stephanopoulos, Blitzer, Wallace and Schieffer. Have at it!
Barbara Boxer and Henry Waxman are expecting defeat in the fight to get the EPA to grant a waiver to the state so it can implement Fran Pavley's landmark tailpipe emissions law.
In a gathering with reporters Tuesday, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said she has "very little hope" that the EPA will grant the waiver, which would open the door to California and more than a dozen other states imposing emission standards more stringent than federal requirements [...]
Asked whether she thought the decision would be made by the EPA or at the White House, Boxer said: "If you look at everything done on the environment, a lot of this leads back to the vice president's office."
"Politics is alive and well in relation to this waiver," said Boxer, chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
It's difficult to understate how abnormal this would be. The EPA has never denied a waiver to California allowing them to regulate their own emissions.
The EPA Administrator, Stephen Johnson, has claimed there will be a decision on the waiver by the end of the year, but he's ducking requests for meetings with Boxer, and ignoring letters from Waxman. The handwriting is on the wall. I don't know if the lawsuit prepared by the state demanded that a decision be made on the waiver or that the waiver be granted. Either way, expect some legal recourse as a result of the expected denial. And expect little movement on implementation of a law central to California's efforts to curb emissions until the swearing in of a new President.
The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday slapped down California's bid for first-in-the-nation greenhouse gas limits on cars, trucks and SUVs, denying a request for a waiver that would have allowed those restrictions to take effect.
"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," EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson said in a statement.
EPA's decision ignores the law, science, and commonsense. This is a policy dictated by politics and ideology, not facts. The Committee will be investigating how and why this decision was made.
