May 30: [Editor Note: The following three article and referenced article from last week, summarize positions of major interest groups involved in the debate over the State of California's request regarding a waiver of preemption under the Clean Air Act for its Greenhouse Gas Emissions regulation for cars and light-duty trucks.]
Automakers Request More Time On CA Waiver
May 22: At hearings conducted by U.S. EPA on California's waiver request for the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines in Washington, DC (May 22) and Sacramento (May 30) [See WIMS 5/21&23/ 07], the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) formally requested a 30-day extension to the comment period because of what it said was "the scope of the issues involved." The current deadline for submitting public comments to EPA is June 15, 2007.
AAM, representing nine manufacturers including BMW, DaimlerChrysler, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Porsche, Toyota and Volkswagen, delivered testimony at the DC hearing and stated its position on the California waiver request. AAM said:
"Three important points about the waiver request need to be considered. First, California has the initial burden of fully explaining the basis for its waiver request in this proceeding. The waiver application presented to EPA contains many assumptions and undocumented claims about the benefits of the regulation and how the industry can comply with it.
"California needs to fully document those claims in order for EPA to move forward. For example, there has been no demonstration by the State in its waiver application that the regulations would help address the issue of climate change or global warming in a concrete manner. If California cannot show that its regulation has a demonstrable impact on global warming, EPA should reject the waiver request. It is impossible to contend that any measure is required to meet a compelling condition if the measure has no impact on the condition. For that simple reason, EPA must reject California’s waiver request.
"Second, and equally important, the Clean Air Act’s primary goal is to improve air quality, and in particular, to ensure that the air is healthy to breathe. The waiver provision of the Clean Air Act requires EPA to review California’s evaluation of how the California regulations compare to the federal regulations in their ability to protect and improve air quality. The waiver application from California asserts that the California program is superior to the federal program as a method of reducing smog-forming emissions, but offers no direct comparison between federal and California programs taken as a whole. California’s omission of such a comparison requires EPA to deny the waiver.
"Finally, we believe that California’s threat to sue EPA is not helpful to this process. EPA must deliberately and thoroughly approach the questions raised by the waiver application, especially when that application contains no evidence that the new standards will have any beneficial impact on the environmental conditions of concern. In short, EPA can and should take the appropriate time needed to properly analyze and respond to the waiver request. The Alliance member companies are committed to improving energy security and fuel economy, but piecemeal regulation at the state level is not the answer. Moreover, California has not demonstrated a basis for this waiver request, and EPA should deny the waiver."
NACAA Testifies In Support Of CA Waiver
May 22: The National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA, formerly known as STAPPA and ALAPCO) testified at U.S. EPA's public hearing in Arlington, VA offering strong support for full and prompt approval of California's request for a waiver of federal preemption under CAA Section 209(b), to permit enforcement of the State's new motor vehicle emission standards to control greenhouse gas emissions. California adopted its regulations in September 2005 and submitted its waiver request to EPA in December 2005.
Bill Becker, NACAA Executive Director urged EPA to respond to California's request without further delay and to grant complete approval of the waiver of Federal preemption. NACAA testified that EPA's role in considering a waiver request is narrow and deferential. NACAA said, "Under the law, EPA must grant California's request for a waiver unless it can demonstrate that California acted arbitrarily and capriciously in adopting its regulations, that there is no longer a compelling and extraordinary need for California to maintain its own motor vehicle program or that California's regulations are not consistent with Section 202(b) of the CAA." NACAA said that in the case of California's greenhouse gas regulations, none of these can be demonstrated and EPA does not have the discretion to deny the waiver request.
Sierra Club Testifies In Support Of CA Waiver
May 30: Testifying at the Sacramento, CA hearing on California's request for a waiver of Federal preemption under CAA Section 209(b), to permit enforcement of the State's new motor vehicle emission standards to control greenhouse gas emissions, Sierra Club denounced what it called "more than a year and a half of delay by the federal government that has prevented California and 11 other states from implementing a law to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks." Sierra Club called on the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to immediately approve a needed "waiver" to the Clean Air Act permitting states to exceed Federal standards in combating pollution.
Sierra Club's regional staff director Carl Zichella, told agency officials that further delay in approving California's waiver was "making global warming more dangerous and difficult to solve." This failure to act was "unacceptable, irresponsible and immoral." Zichella said, "The debate over the science of global warming and the role of human activities in causing the problem is over. The debate over whether EPA has the authority to regulate CO2 is now also over. EPA has refused to act on California's request for more than a year and a half. It is now time for this unnecessary and dangerous delay to end. In the face of scientific and legal consensus, further delay amounts to playing politics with a lethal problem."
Sierra Club's testimony adds to the environmental group positions announced last week by Environmental Defense and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Both groups indicated that they had filed a notice of intent to sue the U.S. EPA to force a long-delayed ruling on California’s request to establish new tailpipe emissions standards for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. They indicated that they join California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and California Attorney General Jerry Brown in promising legal action to force a decision if EPA fails to take prompt action. Governor Schwarzenegger said in April that he would give the Agency 180 days to reach a final decision before filing a lawsuit. California and eleven states including: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Maryland; are awaiting the waiver decision from EPA.
Additionally, on May 22, the Senate Environment and Pubic Works (EPW) Committee, Chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) held a hearing entitled, Examining the Case for the California Waiver. Witnesses testifying included: Edmund G. Brown Jr., Attorney General State of California; Professor Jonathan H. Adler Director, Center for Business Law and Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, and Alexander B. Grannis, Commissioner New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
Access the AAM testimony (click here). Access links to the Federal Register notice and complete background information and documents on the California request (click here). Access the complete NACAA testimony (click here). Access a release from Sierra Club and the complete testimony (click here). Access a joint release from Environmental Defense and NRDC (click here). Access the EPW hearing website for links to testimony and the hearing webcast (click here). [*Air, *Climate, *Energy]
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query california waiver. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query california waiver. Sort by date Show all posts
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Friday, February 29, 2008
EPA Signs FR Notice & Releases Documents On CA Waiver Denial
Feb 29: U.S. EPA has posted documents on its website explaining its rationale for the Agency's decision to deny California's waiver request for its greenhouse gas (GHG) standards for motor vehicles [See WIMS 1/2/08]. The documents will soon be published in the Federal Register (FR). On January 24, 2008, U.S. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson testified before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), on his decision to deny the California waiver request [See WIMS 1/23/08]. The waiver would have allowed California and 16 other states to adopt the California-equivalent rules to curb GHG emission from vehicles.
At that time Johnson said he made the decision fully by himself after receiving input from staff, the public and others and reviewing available information. He said he was comfortable with his decision and repeatedly said it was the "right" decision. He said that EPA would complete submitting information to Congress by February 15, 2008, and indicated that he anticipated a full California denial document, explaining the decision, would be published in the Federal Register by the end of February. Until now the only official denial has been a letter to California dated December 19, 2007, setting forth EPA's intent to deny the waiver in favor of a national solution for vehicle greenhouse-gas emissions. The documents posted by EPA include an officially signed, 47-page Federal Register Notice Denying a Waiver of Clean Air Act Preemption for California's 2009 and Subsequent Model Year Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for New Motor Vehicles.
On January 2, 2008, California Attorney General Edmund Brown Jr., on behalf of the State of California, filed its lawsuit against U.S. EPA for “wrongfully and illegally” blocking the State's landmark tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) standards. Brown filed the lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to challenge the EPA’s denial of California's request to implement its emissions law -- which requires a 30 percent reduction in motor vehicle GHG emissions by 2016. Simultaneously, five nonprofit groups -- the Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Defense, International Center for Technology Assessment, Natural Resources Defense Counsel (NRDC) and the Sierra Club -- also filed a lawsuit challenging the EPA decision. 15 states have also filed a motion to intervene in support of California [See WIMS 1/3/08].
According to the prepublication copy of the signed Federal Register announcement, "Under section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. ' 7543(b), the Environmental Protection Agency denies the California Air Resources Board’s request for a waiver of the Clean Air Act’s prohibition on adopting and enforcing its greenhouse gas emission standards as they affect 2009 and later model year new motor vehicles. This decision is based on the Administrator’s finding that California does not need its greenhouse gas standards for new motor vehicles to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions."
The notice explains further, "While I [Administrator Stephen Johnson] recognize that global climate change is a serious challenge, I have concluded that section 209(b) was intended to allow California to promulgate state standards applicable to emissions from new motor vehicles to address pollution problems that are local or regional. I do not believe section 209(b)(1)(B) was intended to allow California to promulgate state standards for emissions from new motor vehicles designed to address global climate change problems; nor, in the alternative, do I believe that the effects of climate change in California are compelling and extraordinary compared to the effects in the rest of the country. Based on this finding, pursuant to section 209(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (Act), CARB’s [California Air Resources Board’s] waiver request for its GHG standards for new motor vehicles must be denied. Because my finding regarding section 209(b)(1)(B) must, and is sufficient to, result in a denial of California’s waiver request, it is unnecessary for me to determine whether the criteria for denial of a waiver under sections 209(b)(1)(A) and (C) have been met. I therefore will not address these criteria in this decision."
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, issued a statement on EPA's "decision document" released saying, "It is shocking that even though the whole world now knows that the professional staff at EPA strongly urged Mr. Johnson to grant California's waiver, he completely walked away from his advisors, the science, and precedent, and did the bidding of the special interests instead. This 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." Boxer has been relentless in her pursuit of documents describing how Johnson made his decision. On January 26, she release a number of summary documents obtained and has instructed Johnson to provide all remaining records no later than March 5, 2008 [See WIMS 2/27/08].
Access EPA's website for the posted documents related to the California GHG Waiver (click here). Access the statement from Senator Boxer (click here). Access various WIMS eNewsUSA Blog posts on the waiver denial (click here). [*Climate,*Energy,*Air]
At that time Johnson said he made the decision fully by himself after receiving input from staff, the public and others and reviewing available information. He said he was comfortable with his decision and repeatedly said it was the "right" decision. He said that EPA would complete submitting information to Congress by February 15, 2008, and indicated that he anticipated a full California denial document, explaining the decision, would be published in the Federal Register by the end of February. Until now the only official denial has been a letter to California dated December 19, 2007, setting forth EPA's intent to deny the waiver in favor of a national solution for vehicle greenhouse-gas emissions. The documents posted by EPA include an officially signed, 47-page Federal Register Notice Denying a Waiver of Clean Air Act Preemption for California's 2009 and Subsequent Model Year Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for New Motor Vehicles.
On January 2, 2008, California Attorney General Edmund Brown Jr., on behalf of the State of California, filed its lawsuit against U.S. EPA for “wrongfully and illegally” blocking the State's landmark tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) standards. Brown filed the lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to challenge the EPA’s denial of California's request to implement its emissions law -- which requires a 30 percent reduction in motor vehicle GHG emissions by 2016. Simultaneously, five nonprofit groups -- the Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Defense, International Center for Technology Assessment, Natural Resources Defense Counsel (NRDC) and the Sierra Club -- also filed a lawsuit challenging the EPA decision. 15 states have also filed a motion to intervene in support of California [See WIMS 1/3/08].
According to the prepublication copy of the signed Federal Register announcement, "Under section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. ' 7543(b), the Environmental Protection Agency denies the California Air Resources Board’s request for a waiver of the Clean Air Act’s prohibition on adopting and enforcing its greenhouse gas emission standards as they affect 2009 and later model year new motor vehicles. This decision is based on the Administrator’s finding that California does not need its greenhouse gas standards for new motor vehicles to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions."
The notice explains further, "While I [Administrator Stephen Johnson] recognize that global climate change is a serious challenge, I have concluded that section 209(b) was intended to allow California to promulgate state standards applicable to emissions from new motor vehicles to address pollution problems that are local or regional. I do not believe section 209(b)(1)(B) was intended to allow California to promulgate state standards for emissions from new motor vehicles designed to address global climate change problems; nor, in the alternative, do I believe that the effects of climate change in California are compelling and extraordinary compared to the effects in the rest of the country. Based on this finding, pursuant to section 209(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (Act), CARB’s [California Air Resources Board’s] waiver request for its GHG standards for new motor vehicles must be denied. Because my finding regarding section 209(b)(1)(B) must, and is sufficient to, result in a denial of California’s waiver request, it is unnecessary for me to determine whether the criteria for denial of a waiver under sections 209(b)(1)(A) and (C) have been met. I therefore will not address these criteria in this decision."
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, issued a statement on EPA's "decision document" released saying, "It is shocking that even though the whole world now knows that the professional staff at EPA strongly urged Mr. Johnson to grant California's waiver, he completely walked away from his advisors, the science, and precedent, and did the bidding of the special interests instead. This 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." Boxer has been relentless in her pursuit of documents describing how Johnson made his decision. On January 26, she release a number of summary documents obtained and has instructed Johnson to provide all remaining records no later than March 5, 2008 [See WIMS 2/27/08].
Access EPA's website for the posted documents related to the California GHG Waiver (click here). Access the statement from Senator Boxer (click here). Access various WIMS eNewsUSA Blog posts on the waiver denial (click here). [*Climate,*Energy,*Air]
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
EPA Issues "California Waiver" For Vehicle GHG Controls
Jun 30: After years of intense legal and political wrangling, U.S. EPA is granting California’s waiver request enabling the state to enforce its greenhouse gas emissions standards for new motor vehicles, beginning with the current model year. EPA said, "Using the law and science as its guide, EPA has taken this action to tackle air pollution and protect human health."
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said, “This decision puts the law and science first. After review of the scientific findings, and another comprehensive round of public engagement, I have decided this is the appropriate course under the law. This waiver is consistent with the Clean Air Act as it’s been used for the last 40 years and supports the prerogatives of the 13 states and the District of Columbia who have opted to follow California’s lead. More importantly, this decision reinforces the historic agreement on nationwide emissions standards developed by a broad coalition of industry, government and environmental stakeholders earlier this year.”
The first California waiver request was made in December 2005 and was subsequently denied in March 2008. This previous decision was based on a Bush-era interpretation of the Clean Air Act finding that California did not have a need for its greenhouse gas emission standards to meet “compelling and extraordinary conditions.” California made its request for a waiver of federal preemption under CAA Section 209(b), to permit enforcement of the State's new motor vehicle emission standards to control greenhouse gas emissions adopted in September 2005. The State subsequently submitted its waiver request to EPA in December that year.
Shortly after taking office in January, President Barack Obama directed EPA to assess the appropriateness of denying the waiver. EPA received a letter from California on January 21, 2009, raising several issues for Administrator Jackson to review regarding the denial. Last month, President Obama announced a first-ever national policy aimed at both increasing fuel economy and reducing greenhouse gas pollution for all new cars and trucks sold in the United States [See WIMS 5/19/09]. The new standards would cover model years 2012-2016. When the national program takes effect, California has committed to allowing automakers who show compliance with the national program to also be deemed in compliance with state requirements.
In a release, EPA indicated that with the decision to grant the California waiver, the Agency returns to its traditional legal interpretation of the Clean Air Act that has been applied consistently during the past 40 years. EPA finds that California continues to have a need for its motor vehicle emissions program, including the greenhouse gas standards. EPA also finds that the California program meets legal requirements regarding the protectiveness of public health and welfare as well as technological feasibility.
EPA said it based its decision on an extensive record of scientific and technical evidence. As part of the reconsideration, EPA revisited the prior decision documents and record. The Agency also opened a new comment period, including public hearings. The Clean Air Act gives EPA the authority to allow California to adopt its own emission standards for new motor vehicles due to the seriousness of the State’s air pollution challenges. There is a long-standing history of EPA granting waivers to the State of California.
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued a statement on EPA's action saying, "After being asleep at the wheel for over two decades, the federal government has finally stepped up and granted California its nation-leading tailpipe emissions waiver. This decision is a huge step for our emerging green economy that will create thousands of new jobs and bring Californians the cars they want while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Thanks to the environmental commitment of President Obama and the continued leadership of state Senator Fran Pavley, California's long battle to reduce pollution from passenger vehicles is over, and a greener, cleaner future has finally arrived."
California is the only state under the Federal Clean Air Act, with the unique ability to set stricter-than-Federal standards for vehicles, as long as it gets a waiver from the Federal government. Once California receives a waiver from the Federal government, then other states can choose to adopt California's cleaner standards. Thirteen other states and the District of Columbia have adopted California's clean car standards. The thirteen other states, as of January 21, 2009, that have adopted California's standards include: Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.
The California release includes comments from a number of the other state Governors. For example: Vermont Governor Jim Douglas said, "The Obama Administration's decision to grant California a waiver for its standards restricting greenhouse gas emission from motor vehicles is a significant step in the right direction for Vermont and other states that adopted these standards. My commitment to reducing carbon emissions in Vermont is longstanding as Vermont has been fighting to join California in adopting these standards for some time now. . . Auto emissions are one of the main contributors to greenhouse gas concentrations. This is particularly true in Vermont where the transportation sector accounts for approximately 45 percent of our carbon footprint. That is why reducing an emission from automobiles is so important here in Vermont."
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works issued a statement saying, "The granting of this waiver will unleash innovative technologies that will create millions of clean energy jobs as we move toward new cleaner and more efficient vehicles. It should be comforting to the American people to know that the Environmental Protection Agency is now putting science and the law back into the driver’s seat rather than politics and special interests. I commend the Obama Administration for doing what is right for the people of California, the environment and the many states in the union that intend to follow California’s lead in cleaning up tailpipe emissions.”
Dave McCurdy, president and CEO, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) said, "President Obama’s decision last month to create a single national program for greenhouse gas emissions and fuel economy standards moves us toward a policy that ensures that consumers in all 50 states have access to highly fuel-efficient vehicles at an affordable price. We are hopeful the granting of this waiver will not undermine the enormous efforts put forth to create the national program. The President has succeeded in bringing three regulatory bodies, 15 states, a dozen automakers and many environmental groups to the table. The national program has launched a new beginning, a new chapter and a new era of cooperation. Automakers remain committed to working with all parties to further this single national program administered by the federal government."
AAM reported that EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) have initiated efforts to issue a joint rulemaking that is intended to reflect a coordinated and harmonized approach to implementing the Clean Air Act and the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. The rulemaking is expected to begin shortly and be concluded by March 30, 2010 and will apply to vehicles from MY 2012-2016.
James Fine, economist and policy scientist at Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) said, "Cleaner cars are a trifecta that will save families money at the gas pump, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and cut global warming pollution from tailpipes." EDF issued a new report, Saving Fuel, Saving Money, Saving Our Climate, that compares automobile fleets under two scenarios for years 2010 through 2030. The first scenario is based on current and projected Federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) standards. The second scenario is based on implementation of California's vehicle greenhouse gas performance standards (i.e., Clean Car Standards) through 2020, with continued progress through 2030. The Clean Car Standards can be achieved using existing technologies, including: alternative fuels, advanced tire technology, engine adjustments and improved air conditioning systems. Fine said, "This study shows that once these standards go into effect in these states, drivers will save billions of dollars, while dramatically reducing global warming pollution from tailpipes, one of the major sources of global warming pollution."
Access a release and audio clips from U.S. EPA (click here). Access EPA's CA Waiver website for extensive background information (click here). Access a release from Gov. Schwarzenegger that includes comments from other Governors (click here). Access a release from Sen. Boxer (click here). Access a release from AAM (click here). Access a release from EDF and link to the report (click here). For background information on the historical controversy see numerous WIMS-eNewsUSA blog posts (click here).
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said, “This decision puts the law and science first. After review of the scientific findings, and another comprehensive round of public engagement, I have decided this is the appropriate course under the law. This waiver is consistent with the Clean Air Act as it’s been used for the last 40 years and supports the prerogatives of the 13 states and the District of Columbia who have opted to follow California’s lead. More importantly, this decision reinforces the historic agreement on nationwide emissions standards developed by a broad coalition of industry, government and environmental stakeholders earlier this year.”
The first California waiver request was made in December 2005 and was subsequently denied in March 2008. This previous decision was based on a Bush-era interpretation of the Clean Air Act finding that California did not have a need for its greenhouse gas emission standards to meet “compelling and extraordinary conditions.” California made its request for a waiver of federal preemption under CAA Section 209(b), to permit enforcement of the State's new motor vehicle emission standards to control greenhouse gas emissions adopted in September 2005. The State subsequently submitted its waiver request to EPA in December that year.
Shortly after taking office in January, President Barack Obama directed EPA to assess the appropriateness of denying the waiver. EPA received a letter from California on January 21, 2009, raising several issues for Administrator Jackson to review regarding the denial. Last month, President Obama announced a first-ever national policy aimed at both increasing fuel economy and reducing greenhouse gas pollution for all new cars and trucks sold in the United States [See WIMS 5/19/09]. The new standards would cover model years 2012-2016. When the national program takes effect, California has committed to allowing automakers who show compliance with the national program to also be deemed in compliance with state requirements.
In a release, EPA indicated that with the decision to grant the California waiver, the Agency returns to its traditional legal interpretation of the Clean Air Act that has been applied consistently during the past 40 years. EPA finds that California continues to have a need for its motor vehicle emissions program, including the greenhouse gas standards. EPA also finds that the California program meets legal requirements regarding the protectiveness of public health and welfare as well as technological feasibility.
EPA said it based its decision on an extensive record of scientific and technical evidence. As part of the reconsideration, EPA revisited the prior decision documents and record. The Agency also opened a new comment period, including public hearings. The Clean Air Act gives EPA the authority to allow California to adopt its own emission standards for new motor vehicles due to the seriousness of the State’s air pollution challenges. There is a long-standing history of EPA granting waivers to the State of California.
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued a statement on EPA's action saying, "After being asleep at the wheel for over two decades, the federal government has finally stepped up and granted California its nation-leading tailpipe emissions waiver. This decision is a huge step for our emerging green economy that will create thousands of new jobs and bring Californians the cars they want while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Thanks to the environmental commitment of President Obama and the continued leadership of state Senator Fran Pavley, California's long battle to reduce pollution from passenger vehicles is over, and a greener, cleaner future has finally arrived."
California is the only state under the Federal Clean Air Act, with the unique ability to set stricter-than-Federal standards for vehicles, as long as it gets a waiver from the Federal government. Once California receives a waiver from the Federal government, then other states can choose to adopt California's cleaner standards. Thirteen other states and the District of Columbia have adopted California's clean car standards. The thirteen other states, as of January 21, 2009, that have adopted California's standards include: Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.
The California release includes comments from a number of the other state Governors. For example: Vermont Governor Jim Douglas said, "The Obama Administration's decision to grant California a waiver for its standards restricting greenhouse gas emission from motor vehicles is a significant step in the right direction for Vermont and other states that adopted these standards. My commitment to reducing carbon emissions in Vermont is longstanding as Vermont has been fighting to join California in adopting these standards for some time now. . . Auto emissions are one of the main contributors to greenhouse gas concentrations. This is particularly true in Vermont where the transportation sector accounts for approximately 45 percent of our carbon footprint. That is why reducing an emission from automobiles is so important here in Vermont."
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works issued a statement saying, "The granting of this waiver will unleash innovative technologies that will create millions of clean energy jobs as we move toward new cleaner and more efficient vehicles. It should be comforting to the American people to know that the Environmental Protection Agency is now putting science and the law back into the driver’s seat rather than politics and special interests. I commend the Obama Administration for doing what is right for the people of California, the environment and the many states in the union that intend to follow California’s lead in cleaning up tailpipe emissions.”
Dave McCurdy, president and CEO, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) said, "President Obama’s decision last month to create a single national program for greenhouse gas emissions and fuel economy standards moves us toward a policy that ensures that consumers in all 50 states have access to highly fuel-efficient vehicles at an affordable price. We are hopeful the granting of this waiver will not undermine the enormous efforts put forth to create the national program. The President has succeeded in bringing three regulatory bodies, 15 states, a dozen automakers and many environmental groups to the table. The national program has launched a new beginning, a new chapter and a new era of cooperation. Automakers remain committed to working with all parties to further this single national program administered by the federal government."
AAM reported that EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) have initiated efforts to issue a joint rulemaking that is intended to reflect a coordinated and harmonized approach to implementing the Clean Air Act and the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. The rulemaking is expected to begin shortly and be concluded by March 30, 2010 and will apply to vehicles from MY 2012-2016.
James Fine, economist and policy scientist at Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) said, "Cleaner cars are a trifecta that will save families money at the gas pump, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and cut global warming pollution from tailpipes." EDF issued a new report, Saving Fuel, Saving Money, Saving Our Climate, that compares automobile fleets under two scenarios for years 2010 through 2030. The first scenario is based on current and projected Federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) standards. The second scenario is based on implementation of California's vehicle greenhouse gas performance standards (i.e., Clean Car Standards) through 2020, with continued progress through 2030. The Clean Car Standards can be achieved using existing technologies, including: alternative fuels, advanced tire technology, engine adjustments and improved air conditioning systems. Fine said, "This study shows that once these standards go into effect in these states, drivers will save billions of dollars, while dramatically reducing global warming pollution from tailpipes, one of the major sources of global warming pollution."
Access a release and audio clips from U.S. EPA (click here). Access EPA's CA Waiver website for extensive background information (click here). Access a release from Gov. Schwarzenegger that includes comments from other Governors (click here). Access a release from Sen. Boxer (click here). Access a release from AAM (click here). Access a release from EDF and link to the report (click here). For background information on the historical controversy see numerous WIMS-eNewsUSA blog posts (click here).
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Reactions To President's Directives On Energy & Climate Change
Jan 27: There was significant reaction from many sectors to President Obama's direction to U.S. EPA to review the previous denial of a waiver request by California to set its own standards for the regulation of vehicle emissions and his directive for the Department of Transportation (DOT) to establish higher Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for carmakers' 2011 model year. [See WIMS 1/26/09]. In his speech, announcing the directives, the President also delivered his strongest statements to date on climate change and global warming. He said, ". . . the long-term threat of climate change, which, if left unchecked, could result in violent conflict, terrible storms, shrinking coastlines, and irreversible catastrophe. . ."
On the California waiver it is important to emphasize precisely what the President said as there has been considerable misleading reports and statements on his statement. The President said, "California has shown bold and bipartisan leadership through its effort to forge 21st-century standards, and over a dozen states have followed its lead. But instead of serving as a partner, Washington stood in their way. This refusal to lead risks the creation of a confusing and patchwork set of standards that hurts the environment and the auto industry. . . And that's why I'm directing the Environmental Protection Agency to immediately review the denial of the California waiver request and determine the best way forward. This will help us create incentives to develop new energy that will make us less dependent on the oil that endangers our security, our economy and our planet." [emphasis added]. It appears the President is proposing a national standard and would like to discourage individual states from adopting the California standard.
There has also been confusing reporting on the number of other states interested in adopting the California standard. The State of California reports that thirteen other states, as of January 21, 2009, have adopted California's standards including: Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. In various reports and statements, it has also been implied that there would be many different regulations in the various states if the California waiver were granted. It should also be emphasized that if the California waiver were approved and other states were to adopt the California standard as permitted under the Clean Air Act, there would only be two different standards -- not 16-18 different standards in various states.
The following is a sampling of various reactions from different sectors to the President's announcements. Access the complete statements by clicking on the active links.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) - "This morning, President Obama signaled that our country can no longer afford to wait to combat the climate crisis and our dangerous dependence on foreign oil. He is setting our country on a path led by science and innovation, in a dramatic departure from the past eight years. Granting the request of California and other states to move forward with reducing greenhouse gases emissions from vehicles will steer American automakers to retool their fleets. Only through innovation will automakers be able to create the greener cars of the future and regain their global competitiveness. President Obama has also sent a clear message on CAFE standards. Restarting the implementation of new fuel efficiency standards will allow the Obama Administration to bring fresh thinking to the process and ensure the standards achieve the goals set by Congress in the landmark 2007 energy bill."
House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) - “The President’s action today is disappointing. The effect of this policy will be to destroy American jobs at the very time government leaders should be working together to protect and create them. Millions of American jobs will be placed in further jeopardy if automakers are forced to spend billions to comply with potentially dozens of different emissions standards in dozens of different states. . . Reversing the decision could open the door to states setting their own standards, forcing struggling American automakers -- which recently received billions in taxpayer funds -- to comply with potentially dozens of different and costly standards across the country."
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) - "I have long said that granting California the waiver so that California and 18 other states can address tailpipe emissions from cars is the best first step the President can take to combat global warming and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It is so refreshing to see that the President understands that science must lead the way. We know that the scientists and professionals at EPA have made it clear that science and the law demand that the waiver be granted. As Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I will be working with the new EPA Administrator to ensure that the California waiver moves forward as quickly as possible. The President's comments about the importance of American leadership on clean energy and global warming were also music to my ears."
U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) - It’s unfortunate that the administration believes a patchwork of state regulations is better than a single national fuel economy standard. This is a crippling mandate for the ailing auto industry. Why attempt to bail out the auto industry on one hand and on the other mandate regulations that will further raise costs and result in more job losses in the industry? The potential granting of this waiver could authorize an untested, state-by-state regulatory program that could undermine the national CAFE standard, thus creating a patchwork of regulatory compliance obligations that would provide marginal, if any, benefit from a greenhouse gas reduction standpoint, but would tremendously increase costs and burdens on interstate commerce and on the automobile industry. It is a political exercise that attempts to address a global issue with a statewide solution that undermines a carefully crafted and newly revised national fuel economy standard.”
Representative Edward Markey (D-MA) - This is an energy triple play that will cut global warming pollution, increase innovation, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It shows what a visionary president is capable of doing, and the faith he has in the economic revival that America's automotive and energy industries can produce. . . President Obama is right to reconsider the way these fuel economy standards are implemented, and will undoubtedly use sound science and realistic analysis to achieve the strongest results that benefit consumers. Granting the waiver to California, Massachusetts and other states to go forward with reducing global warming emissions from vehicle tailpipes is what even the Bush Administration’s own experts concluded must be done, and I’m delighted that the era of politics trumping science and the law is over.
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger - "With this announcement from President Obama less than a week into his administration, it is clear that California and the environment now have a strong ally in the White House. Allowing California and other states to aggressively reduce their own harmful vehicle tailpipe emissions would be a historic win for clean air and for millions of Americans who want more fuel-efficient, environmentally-friendly cars. My administration has been fighting for this waiver since 2005 and we will not give up until it is granted because we owe it to our children and to our grandchildren to do more than just protect our natural resources, we must also work to improve them so that we leave behind an environment for future generations that is better than it is today.” [See also a California chronology on the waiver issue]
National Association of Clean Air Agencies - "Federal legislation must not preempt state or local governments from taking additional and more stringent actions to reduce GHG emissions. . . EPA should propose and promulgate a finding that GHG emissions endanger public health and welfare and use the authorities under the Clean Air Act to regulate GHG emissions. . . The Bush Administration’s denial of California's waiver request left California and over a dozen states with limited means to reduce motor vehicles' contributions to climate change. The Administration should immediately overturn the decision denying California's waiver application. . ." [Excerpted from a comprehensive set of recommendations for the Obama Administration, dated 12/16/08]
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers - "The Alliance supports a nationwide program that bridges state and federal concerns and moves all stakeholders forward, and we are ready to work with the Administration on developing a national approach. Since CA sought federal permission to set its own fuel economy/CO2 standards, there have been many developments. The U.S. Supreme Court directed EPA to reconsider greenhouse gas regulations for autos, the Congress passed stringent new fuel economy standards requiring CO2 reductions of at least 30%, automakers are offering more than 25 models of hybrids for sale in 2009, President Obama and a Democratic Senate and House are considering a comprehensive, economy-wide approach to CO2 reductions, and the credit crunch is producing the toughest marketplace since World War II. Today in the U.S. there are three voices on fuel economy/CO2 -- NHTSA, EPA and CA -- and each has different standards, different structures and different timelines. Automakers seek a federal-state solution that provides us with compliance clarity and one national standard. The Alliance also urges the Obama Administration to issue fuel economy standards for MY2011, because automakers are working on their product plans now and need the certainty of final standards."
U.S. Chamber of Commerce - “At a time when we need to jump start our economy, regulating CO2 in this manner would stop most of President Obama’s stimulus proposal cold in its tracks and create a regulatory train wreck. California should not set national standards for environmental regulation. The President already has the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Allowing the California waiver would create a patchwork of regulations, be inefficient, and not achieve the desired outcome. As Congress tries to bail out the auto industry, California wants to punch more holes in the bottom of the boat. In addition, such a move would put the EPA one step closer to making carbon dioxide ‘subject to regulation’ under the Act."
National Association of Manufacturers - "The NAM understands the fundamental importance of protecting the environment. Our member companies are committed to greater environmental sustainability, including energy efficiency and conservation and reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with global climate change. We know we cannot solve the climate change issue alone. . . A separate waiver for California would lead to a patchwork of greenhouse gas reduction laws when climate change is a global issue and should be addressed on a national level."
American Petroleum Institute - API supports President Obama’s desire to fortify the nation’s energy security with a comprehensive energy policy. The oil and natural gas industry, which supports 6 million workers, stands ready to advance those national goals and we urge policymakers to proceed with plans to extend new leases on non-park federal lands and waters to develop energy resources that belong to the American people. However, the President’s directive to the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider its denial of California’s request for a waiver that stopped California and 13 other states from implementing their own limits on auto emissions is not the way to go on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Creating a patchwork regulatory structure across multiple states would most likely impose higher costs on consumers, slow economic growth and kill U.S. jobs.
Earthjustice - "President Obama's directive is a much welcome move toward an energy efficient economy, with cleaner air and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. We're very pleased the President took this immediate step toward allowing California and other states to set stronger standards. We're on our way to producing more jobs and a cleaner environment, during a time where restoring both the economy and the environment are crucial to this country."
Natural Resources Defense Council - “What a thrilling moment to have our new president put his vision into action for a cleaner and safer environment. President Obama’s announcement is a big step in fulfilling his campaign promises for a clean energy economy that will move America beyond oil, create new jobs and reduce global warming pollution. This is a strong signal to the world that America is ready to quickly step forward as a leader in the fight against global warming.”
Environmental Defense Fund - President Barack Obama signed two executive orders that could be remembered as the critical turning point toward achieving real energy independence and stopping global warming. . . The President's powerful statement affirming his commitment to moving aggressively to cut global warming emissions and unleash America's clean energy future laid out clear goals for action in the coming weeks and months.
National Wildlife Federation - "Today’s decision provides the kind of sound direction the auto industry needs to once again lead and build the kind of cars not only America needs, but the world needs. Our energy policies will no longer be based on denial and delay but instead on sound science that tells us we don’t have to choose among efficient vehicles, jobs and a healthy environment. With these new standards and President Obama’s proposed new green investments, we can advance cutting-edge technology that will restore America’s place as a world leader in the auto industry, save consumers money, and reduce our global warming pollution. President Obama has sent a clear message that America is leaving behind our failed fossil fuel policies that leave consumers at the mercy of wild swings in prices at the pump."
Union of Concerned Scientists - "This is a clean break from the previous administration's do-nothing approaches on global warming and U.S. oil dependence. Reconsidering the waiver denial is a clear indication that the new administration is ready to lead on energy and global warming. With this announcement, President Obama is beginning to make good on his campaign pledge to restore science to its rightful place in federal policymaking. I'm confident the administration will heed the advice of EPA staff scientists, grant the waiver, and take necessary steps to implement nationwide greenhouse gas standards for vehicles. If EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson follows through with her promise to keep the process transparent, we'll know the role science played in this decision."
GreenpeaceUSA - “For eight years, President Bush blocked the country’s progress on global warming solutions. At long last, the era of obstruction and denial is over. . . Detroit itself has indicated that this action is not only possible but also good for business. In its ‘modernization plans’ submitted to Congress as part of its request for a taxpayer bailout last fall, General Motors pledged fuel efficiency improvements that would allow the company to meet a national clean cars standard consistent with California’s, according to an analysis by Natural Resources Defense Council."
United Nations Environment Programme - "Just days after taking office, US President Barack Obama has appointed a climate envoy and cleared the way for new rules to force automakers to produce cleaner cars. The President signed papers aimed to prod the struggling US auto industry to design new fuel-efficient vehicles. His Administration is also considering whether to allow California to regulate car emissions, which are blamed for contributing to global warming. The move could prompt 18 states to put in place tougher emission limits than federal standards over coming months."
Access the complete statements above by clicking on the active links. Access the "The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007" Presidential Memo (click here). Access the "State of California Request for Waiver" Presidential Memo (click here). Access various WIMS-eNewsUSA blog posts on the California waiver issue (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]
On the California waiver it is important to emphasize precisely what the President said as there has been considerable misleading reports and statements on his statement. The President said, "California has shown bold and bipartisan leadership through its effort to forge 21st-century standards, and over a dozen states have followed its lead. But instead of serving as a partner, Washington stood in their way. This refusal to lead risks the creation of a confusing and patchwork set of standards that hurts the environment and the auto industry. . . And that's why I'm directing the Environmental Protection Agency to immediately review the denial of the California waiver request and determine the best way forward. This will help us create incentives to develop new energy that will make us less dependent on the oil that endangers our security, our economy and our planet." [emphasis added]. It appears the President is proposing a national standard and would like to discourage individual states from adopting the California standard.
There has also been confusing reporting on the number of other states interested in adopting the California standard. The State of California reports that thirteen other states, as of January 21, 2009, have adopted California's standards including: Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. In various reports and statements, it has also been implied that there would be many different regulations in the various states if the California waiver were granted. It should also be emphasized that if the California waiver were approved and other states were to adopt the California standard as permitted under the Clean Air Act, there would only be two different standards -- not 16-18 different standards in various states.
The following is a sampling of various reactions from different sectors to the President's announcements. Access the complete statements by clicking on the active links.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) - "This morning, President Obama signaled that our country can no longer afford to wait to combat the climate crisis and our dangerous dependence on foreign oil. He is setting our country on a path led by science and innovation, in a dramatic departure from the past eight years. Granting the request of California and other states to move forward with reducing greenhouse gases emissions from vehicles will steer American automakers to retool their fleets. Only through innovation will automakers be able to create the greener cars of the future and regain their global competitiveness. President Obama has also sent a clear message on CAFE standards. Restarting the implementation of new fuel efficiency standards will allow the Obama Administration to bring fresh thinking to the process and ensure the standards achieve the goals set by Congress in the landmark 2007 energy bill."
House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) - “The President’s action today is disappointing. The effect of this policy will be to destroy American jobs at the very time government leaders should be working together to protect and create them. Millions of American jobs will be placed in further jeopardy if automakers are forced to spend billions to comply with potentially dozens of different emissions standards in dozens of different states. . . Reversing the decision could open the door to states setting their own standards, forcing struggling American automakers -- which recently received billions in taxpayer funds -- to comply with potentially dozens of different and costly standards across the country."
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) - "I have long said that granting California the waiver so that California and 18 other states can address tailpipe emissions from cars is the best first step the President can take to combat global warming and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It is so refreshing to see that the President understands that science must lead the way. We know that the scientists and professionals at EPA have made it clear that science and the law demand that the waiver be granted. As Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I will be working with the new EPA Administrator to ensure that the California waiver moves forward as quickly as possible. The President's comments about the importance of American leadership on clean energy and global warming were also music to my ears."
U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) - It’s unfortunate that the administration believes a patchwork of state regulations is better than a single national fuel economy standard. This is a crippling mandate for the ailing auto industry. Why attempt to bail out the auto industry on one hand and on the other mandate regulations that will further raise costs and result in more job losses in the industry? The potential granting of this waiver could authorize an untested, state-by-state regulatory program that could undermine the national CAFE standard, thus creating a patchwork of regulatory compliance obligations that would provide marginal, if any, benefit from a greenhouse gas reduction standpoint, but would tremendously increase costs and burdens on interstate commerce and on the automobile industry. It is a political exercise that attempts to address a global issue with a statewide solution that undermines a carefully crafted and newly revised national fuel economy standard.”
Representative Edward Markey (D-MA) - This is an energy triple play that will cut global warming pollution, increase innovation, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It shows what a visionary president is capable of doing, and the faith he has in the economic revival that America's automotive and energy industries can produce. . . President Obama is right to reconsider the way these fuel economy standards are implemented, and will undoubtedly use sound science and realistic analysis to achieve the strongest results that benefit consumers. Granting the waiver to California, Massachusetts and other states to go forward with reducing global warming emissions from vehicle tailpipes is what even the Bush Administration’s own experts concluded must be done, and I’m delighted that the era of politics trumping science and the law is over.
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger - "With this announcement from President Obama less than a week into his administration, it is clear that California and the environment now have a strong ally in the White House. Allowing California and other states to aggressively reduce their own harmful vehicle tailpipe emissions would be a historic win for clean air and for millions of Americans who want more fuel-efficient, environmentally-friendly cars. My administration has been fighting for this waiver since 2005 and we will not give up until it is granted because we owe it to our children and to our grandchildren to do more than just protect our natural resources, we must also work to improve them so that we leave behind an environment for future generations that is better than it is today.” [See also a California chronology on the waiver issue]
National Association of Clean Air Agencies - "Federal legislation must not preempt state or local governments from taking additional and more stringent actions to reduce GHG emissions. . . EPA should propose and promulgate a finding that GHG emissions endanger public health and welfare and use the authorities under the Clean Air Act to regulate GHG emissions. . . The Bush Administration’s denial of California's waiver request left California and over a dozen states with limited means to reduce motor vehicles' contributions to climate change. The Administration should immediately overturn the decision denying California's waiver application. . ." [Excerpted from a comprehensive set of recommendations for the Obama Administration, dated 12/16/08]
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers - "The Alliance supports a nationwide program that bridges state and federal concerns and moves all stakeholders forward, and we are ready to work with the Administration on developing a national approach. Since CA sought federal permission to set its own fuel economy/CO2 standards, there have been many developments. The U.S. Supreme Court directed EPA to reconsider greenhouse gas regulations for autos, the Congress passed stringent new fuel economy standards requiring CO2 reductions of at least 30%, automakers are offering more than 25 models of hybrids for sale in 2009, President Obama and a Democratic Senate and House are considering a comprehensive, economy-wide approach to CO2 reductions, and the credit crunch is producing the toughest marketplace since World War II. Today in the U.S. there are three voices on fuel economy/CO2 -- NHTSA, EPA and CA -- and each has different standards, different structures and different timelines. Automakers seek a federal-state solution that provides us with compliance clarity and one national standard. The Alliance also urges the Obama Administration to issue fuel economy standards for MY2011, because automakers are working on their product plans now and need the certainty of final standards."
U.S. Chamber of Commerce - “At a time when we need to jump start our economy, regulating CO2 in this manner would stop most of President Obama’s stimulus proposal cold in its tracks and create a regulatory train wreck. California should not set national standards for environmental regulation. The President already has the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Allowing the California waiver would create a patchwork of regulations, be inefficient, and not achieve the desired outcome. As Congress tries to bail out the auto industry, California wants to punch more holes in the bottom of the boat. In addition, such a move would put the EPA one step closer to making carbon dioxide ‘subject to regulation’ under the Act."
National Association of Manufacturers - "The NAM understands the fundamental importance of protecting the environment. Our member companies are committed to greater environmental sustainability, including energy efficiency and conservation and reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with global climate change. We know we cannot solve the climate change issue alone. . . A separate waiver for California would lead to a patchwork of greenhouse gas reduction laws when climate change is a global issue and should be addressed on a national level."
American Petroleum Institute - API supports President Obama’s desire to fortify the nation’s energy security with a comprehensive energy policy. The oil and natural gas industry, which supports 6 million workers, stands ready to advance those national goals and we urge policymakers to proceed with plans to extend new leases on non-park federal lands and waters to develop energy resources that belong to the American people. However, the President’s directive to the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider its denial of California’s request for a waiver that stopped California and 13 other states from implementing their own limits on auto emissions is not the way to go on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Creating a patchwork regulatory structure across multiple states would most likely impose higher costs on consumers, slow economic growth and kill U.S. jobs.
Earthjustice - "President Obama's directive is a much welcome move toward an energy efficient economy, with cleaner air and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. We're very pleased the President took this immediate step toward allowing California and other states to set stronger standards. We're on our way to producing more jobs and a cleaner environment, during a time where restoring both the economy and the environment are crucial to this country."
Natural Resources Defense Council - “What a thrilling moment to have our new president put his vision into action for a cleaner and safer environment. President Obama’s announcement is a big step in fulfilling his campaign promises for a clean energy economy that will move America beyond oil, create new jobs and reduce global warming pollution. This is a strong signal to the world that America is ready to quickly step forward as a leader in the fight against global warming.”
Environmental Defense Fund - President Barack Obama signed two executive orders that could be remembered as the critical turning point toward achieving real energy independence and stopping global warming. . . The President's powerful statement affirming his commitment to moving aggressively to cut global warming emissions and unleash America's clean energy future laid out clear goals for action in the coming weeks and months.
National Wildlife Federation - "Today’s decision provides the kind of sound direction the auto industry needs to once again lead and build the kind of cars not only America needs, but the world needs. Our energy policies will no longer be based on denial and delay but instead on sound science that tells us we don’t have to choose among efficient vehicles, jobs and a healthy environment. With these new standards and President Obama’s proposed new green investments, we can advance cutting-edge technology that will restore America’s place as a world leader in the auto industry, save consumers money, and reduce our global warming pollution. President Obama has sent a clear message that America is leaving behind our failed fossil fuel policies that leave consumers at the mercy of wild swings in prices at the pump."
Union of Concerned Scientists - "This is a clean break from the previous administration's do-nothing approaches on global warming and U.S. oil dependence. Reconsidering the waiver denial is a clear indication that the new administration is ready to lead on energy and global warming. With this announcement, President Obama is beginning to make good on his campaign pledge to restore science to its rightful place in federal policymaking. I'm confident the administration will heed the advice of EPA staff scientists, grant the waiver, and take necessary steps to implement nationwide greenhouse gas standards for vehicles. If EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson follows through with her promise to keep the process transparent, we'll know the role science played in this decision."
GreenpeaceUSA - “For eight years, President Bush blocked the country’s progress on global warming solutions. At long last, the era of obstruction and denial is over. . . Detroit itself has indicated that this action is not only possible but also good for business. In its ‘modernization plans’ submitted to Congress as part of its request for a taxpayer bailout last fall, General Motors pledged fuel efficiency improvements that would allow the company to meet a national clean cars standard consistent with California’s, according to an analysis by Natural Resources Defense Council."
United Nations Environment Programme - "Just days after taking office, US President Barack Obama has appointed a climate envoy and cleared the way for new rules to force automakers to produce cleaner cars. The President signed papers aimed to prod the struggling US auto industry to design new fuel-efficient vehicles. His Administration is also considering whether to allow California to regulate car emissions, which are blamed for contributing to global warming. The move could prompt 18 states to put in place tougher emission limits than federal standards over coming months."
Access the complete statements above by clicking on the active links. Access the "The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007" Presidential Memo (click here). Access the "State of California Request for Waiver" Presidential Memo (click here). Access various WIMS-eNewsUSA blog posts on the California waiver issue (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]
Thursday, November 08, 2007
California Sues EPA Over Vehicle GHG Emission Waiver Request
Nov 8: In a precedent setting lawsuit, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Edmund Brown Jr. sued the U.S. EPA, to force the agency to take action on California’s request to curb greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from motor vehicles. The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in Washington DC, charges the EPA with an unreasonable delay in reaching a decision on California’s landmark law, known as the Pavley bill, which mandates a 30 percent reduction in motor vehicle emissions by 2016. Fourteen other states were expected to support California as interveners in the lawsuit.
Attorney General Brown told a news conference at the State capitol with Governor Schwarzenegger and California Air Resources Board chair, Mary Nichols that, “Despite the mounting dangers of global warming, the EPA has delayed and ignored California’s right to impose stricter environmental standards. We have waited two years and the Supreme Court has ruled in our favor. What is the EPA waiting for?” EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson has previously indicated that he will make a decision by the end of this calendar year. Under the Clean Air Act, passed in 1963, California can adopt environmental standards that are stricter than Federal rules, if the state obtains a waiver from the U.S. EPA. Congress allowed California to impose stricter laws in recognition of the state’s “compelling and extraordinary conditions.” After a California waiver request is granted, other states are permitted to adopt the same rules.
Sixteen other states -- Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Washington -- have adopted, or are in the process of adopting California’s emissions standards and are also awaiting the EPA decision. In the Act’s 40-year history, EPA has granted approximately 50 waivers for innovations like catalytic converters, exhaust emission standards, and leaded gasoline regulations. In the lawsuit, California asserts that EPA has failed to act in a reasonable length of time.
In 2002, California passed AB 1493 which require a 30 percent reduction in global warming emissions from vehicles by 2016, starting with model year 2009. In December 2005, the California Air Resources Board applied for a waiver to implement the law. Governor Schwarzenegger wrote to the EPA in April 2006 and in October 2006, requesting action on California’s application. The state asserts that EPA does not need any additional time to review the facts—the California Air Resources Board submitted a detailed 251-page assessment in 2005 and the U.S. Supreme Court already issued a decision that greenhouse gases are pollutants. In September, a Vermont District Court ruled in favor of the state regulations, rejecting a challenge from the automobile lobby.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) issued a statement saying, "It’s ridiculous that California should have to sue EPA to get permission to implement its clean car standards. California has the legal right under the Clean Air Act to set motor vehicle pollution rules that are tougher than the federal government’s. There’s an old saying: lead, follow or get out of the way. For forty years, California has been the nation’s leader in bringing us cleaner cars. The Bush administration has been blocking this road for two years. Now it’s time for them to move to the shoulder and let California pass. California and 16 other states that have adopted or are adopting the state’s rules are taking the lead in fighting global warming. The Bush EPA should just get out of their way.”
Earthjustice attorney Paul Cort issued a statement saying, "We applaud California on its continued leadership in tackling the issue of global warming. The state legislature, the Governor and the Attorney General recognize global warming is a problem that will not simply disappear without major changes in the way our cars, power plants, and other pollution sources operate. The state's tougher emission standards for cars and trucks will lead the way for the rest of the country. Automakers can no longer drag their feet when it comes to fighting global warming. Cars and trucks are major greenhouse gas emitters, and requiring manufacturers to build cleaner cars is good for California, good for the country, and good for the planet..."
Dave McCurdy, President and CEO, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers issued a statement saying, "Alliance members share the concerns of our customers, the President, the Congress and the American public about fuel economy and carbon dioxide emissions. It is the view of the Alliance that enhancing energy security and improving fuel economy are priorities to all Americans, but a patchwork quilt of regulations at the state level is not the answer. Automakers are currently supporting legislation in Congress that would increase fuel economy by as much as 40 percent in 2022. California’s lawsuit against the EPA is not helpful to the waiver process. EPA must deliberately and thoroughly approach the questions raised by the waiver application, especially when that application does not show that the standards address a problem unique to California. EPA can and should take the appropriate time needed to properly analyze and respond to the waiver request."
Access a release from the CA AG (click here). Access a release from Governor Schwarzenegger with links to video and additional information (click here). Access the complaint filed (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice (click here). Access a release from the Alliance (click here). Access previous WIMS articles and links on the California waiver from various eNewsUSA blog posts (click here). [*Climate, *Air]
Attorney General Brown told a news conference at the State capitol with Governor Schwarzenegger and California Air Resources Board chair, Mary Nichols that, “Despite the mounting dangers of global warming, the EPA has delayed and ignored California’s right to impose stricter environmental standards. We have waited two years and the Supreme Court has ruled in our favor. What is the EPA waiting for?” EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson has previously indicated that he will make a decision by the end of this calendar year. Under the Clean Air Act, passed in 1963, California can adopt environmental standards that are stricter than Federal rules, if the state obtains a waiver from the U.S. EPA. Congress allowed California to impose stricter laws in recognition of the state’s “compelling and extraordinary conditions.” After a California waiver request is granted, other states are permitted to adopt the same rules.
Sixteen other states -- Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Washington -- have adopted, or are in the process of adopting California’s emissions standards and are also awaiting the EPA decision. In the Act’s 40-year history, EPA has granted approximately 50 waivers for innovations like catalytic converters, exhaust emission standards, and leaded gasoline regulations. In the lawsuit, California asserts that EPA has failed to act in a reasonable length of time.
In 2002, California passed AB 1493 which require a 30 percent reduction in global warming emissions from vehicles by 2016, starting with model year 2009. In December 2005, the California Air Resources Board applied for a waiver to implement the law. Governor Schwarzenegger wrote to the EPA in April 2006 and in October 2006, requesting action on California’s application. The state asserts that EPA does not need any additional time to review the facts—the California Air Resources Board submitted a detailed 251-page assessment in 2005 and the U.S. Supreme Court already issued a decision that greenhouse gases are pollutants. In September, a Vermont District Court ruled in favor of the state regulations, rejecting a challenge from the automobile lobby.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) issued a statement saying, "It’s ridiculous that California should have to sue EPA to get permission to implement its clean car standards. California has the legal right under the Clean Air Act to set motor vehicle pollution rules that are tougher than the federal government’s. There’s an old saying: lead, follow or get out of the way. For forty years, California has been the nation’s leader in bringing us cleaner cars. The Bush administration has been blocking this road for two years. Now it’s time for them to move to the shoulder and let California pass. California and 16 other states that have adopted or are adopting the state’s rules are taking the lead in fighting global warming. The Bush EPA should just get out of their way.”
Earthjustice attorney Paul Cort issued a statement saying, "We applaud California on its continued leadership in tackling the issue of global warming. The state legislature, the Governor and the Attorney General recognize global warming is a problem that will not simply disappear without major changes in the way our cars, power plants, and other pollution sources operate. The state's tougher emission standards for cars and trucks will lead the way for the rest of the country. Automakers can no longer drag their feet when it comes to fighting global warming. Cars and trucks are major greenhouse gas emitters, and requiring manufacturers to build cleaner cars is good for California, good for the country, and good for the planet..."
Dave McCurdy, President and CEO, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers issued a statement saying, "Alliance members share the concerns of our customers, the President, the Congress and the American public about fuel economy and carbon dioxide emissions. It is the view of the Alliance that enhancing energy security and improving fuel economy are priorities to all Americans, but a patchwork quilt of regulations at the state level is not the answer. Automakers are currently supporting legislation in Congress that would increase fuel economy by as much as 40 percent in 2022. California’s lawsuit against the EPA is not helpful to the waiver process. EPA must deliberately and thoroughly approach the questions raised by the waiver application, especially when that application does not show that the standards address a problem unique to California. EPA can and should take the appropriate time needed to properly analyze and respond to the waiver request."
Access a release from the CA AG (click here). Access a release from Governor Schwarzenegger with links to video and additional information (click here). Access the complaint filed (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice (click here). Access a release from the Alliance (click here). Access previous WIMS articles and links on the California waiver from various eNewsUSA blog posts (click here). [*Climate, *Air]
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
EPA Denies California GHG Vehicles Emission Rule Waiver
Dec 19: U.S. EPA announced that the Bush Administration is moving forward with a national solution to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from American vehicles. The Agency said that the new energy legislation passed by Congress and signed by President Bush this week [See WIMS 12/14/07] provides a federal fuel economy standard that offers environmental benefits, energy security and economic certainty for the nation. Simultaneously, the Agency denied the State of California's request for a waiver that would have allowed it and 16 other states to adopt the California-equivalent rules to curb GHG emission from vehicles. EPA Administrator Stephen 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. President Bush and Congress have set the bar high, and, when fully implemented, our federal fuel economy standard will achieve significant benefits by applying to all 50 states.”
EPA said it had determined that a unified Federal standard of 35 miles per gallon will deliver significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks in all 50 states, which would be more effective than a partial state-by-state approach of 33.8 miles per gallon. On November 8, 2007, California sued EPA, to force the Agency to take action on its request to curb greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from motor vehicles [See WIMS 11/8/07]. Also, on December 12, 2007, a Federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California rejected an auto industry lawsuit challenging the California-equivalent rules requiring [See WIMS 12/13/07].
EPA said that California’s current waiver request was distinct from all prior requests. The Agency said, "Previous waiver petitions covered pollutants that predominantly impacted local and regional air quality. Greenhouse gases are fundamentally global in nature, which is unlike the other air pollutants covered by prior California waiver requests. These gases contribute to the challenge of global climate change affecting every state in the union. Therefore, according to the criteria in section 209 of the Clean Air Act, EPA did not find that separate California standards are needed to 'meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.'” The Clean Air Act requires EPA to follow a process when determining waiver requests. EPA must provide a public comment and hearing opportunity. The statute also provides three very specific criteria that EPA should evaluate for any California waiver petition.
EPA held two hearings on the waiver request and the comment period began April 30 and closed June 15, 2007. EPA said it reviewed more than 100,000 written comments and thousands of pages of technical and scientific documentation received during the public comment period. The comments represented a wide scope of interests including those of states and localities, public health and environmental groups, academia, industry and private citizens.
EPA indicated that the two primary approaches for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles are increasing the fuel economy of vehicles and reducing the greenhouse gas emissions associated with their fuel. The Agency said the recently signed energy bill (H.R. 6, now Public Law No: 110-140) addresses both approaches by increasing the fuel economy from vehicles to 35 miles per gallon, an increase of forty percent, as well as increasing the amount of renewable fuel used to 36 billion gallons, nearly a five-fold increase.
California Attorney General Edmund Brown Jr. blasted EPA's rejection of the State's waiver request saying, “It is completely absurd to assert that California does not have a compelling need to fight global warming by curbing greenhouse gas emissions from cars. There is absolutely no legal justification for the Bush administration to deny this request -- Governor Schwarzenegger and I are preparing to sue at the earliest possible moment.” Brown said under the Clean Air Act, California can adopt stricter standards by requesting a waiver from EPA and such requests have been approved more than 50 times in the past. California’s law requires a 30 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions standards from motor vehicles by 2016. The Attorney General said the 16 other states impacted by the decision -- Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Washington -- have adopted, or are in the process of adopting California’s emissions standards. Other reports also list Iowa, making a total of 17 additional states.
On December 21, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) sent a letter to EPA Administrator Johnson saying, "The actions of the EPA in denying the California request cannot help but raise serious questions about the support of the Bush Administration for state efforts to safeguard the environment and the health of their residents. As we discussed, your decision will be challenged immediately in the courts and will be carefully scrutinized by the Congress as well.” In her letter the Speaker said, "Surely you and others in the Bush Administration were aware that the Congress rejected requests from the Administration to waive the Environmental Protection Agency’s longstanding authority to regulate emissions and to grant states waivers under the Clean Air Act. Citing the passage of our new law as a justification for denying California’s request defies the legislative history as well as the explicit language of the 'Energy Independence and Security Act.'”
On December 20, Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) announced that the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which he Chairs was launching an investigation and requested EPA to produce to the Committee "all responsive documents from your office by January 10, 2008. All responsive documents from the Office of Transportation and Air Quality
and the Office of General Counsel should be produced by January 17,2008, and all other responsive documents should be produced by January 23,2008." In his letter, Waxman said, "Your decision appears to have ignored the evidence before the agency and the requirements of the Clean Air Act. In fact, reports indicate that you overruled the unanimous recommendations of EPA's legal and technical staffs in rejecting California's petition."
Environmental groups also reacted, criticizing EPA's decision. Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense said, “This decision is like pulling over the fire trucks on their way to the blaze. For 40 years, EPA administrators have recognized the important role that California plays in innovating new standards to fight pollution.” Jim Marston, general counsel for Environmental Defense said, “New CAFE standards, if they go into effect, do not fully phase in until 2020. The California greenhouse gas limits will occur earlier -- beginning in 2009 and fully phased in by 2016. With the mounting evidence of climate change impacts occurring now, it is imperative that we are take action immediately.”
David Doniger, Climate Center Policy Director for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said, "The EPA administrator claimed the new energy law sets a standard of 35 miles per gallon and thereby precludes California’s more effective standards. That is just plain wrong. The energy law only sets a fuel economy floor. It requires the administration to set standards of ‘at least 35 miles per gallon,’ expressly giving the administration the power to go farther. And the law expressly preserves California’s authority under the Clean Air Act to set independent, stronger standards to meet the challenge of global warming. Let's be clear: the California standard is stronger and more effective than the 35-mile-per-gallon floor established in the new energy law."
Access an EPA release (click here). Access an EPA fact sheet on the CA waiver decision (click here). Access a release from the CA AG (click here). Access a release from Speaker Pelosi and a copy of the letter to EPA (click here). Access the letter from Representative Waxman (click here). Access a lengthy release and link to additional information from Environmental Defense (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access a release from Sierra Club (click here). Access PL 110-140 (click here). Access the 12/12/07 57-page CA Federal Court order (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
EPA said it had determined that a unified Federal standard of 35 miles per gallon will deliver significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks in all 50 states, which would be more effective than a partial state-by-state approach of 33.8 miles per gallon. On November 8, 2007, California sued EPA, to force the Agency to take action on its request to curb greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from motor vehicles [See WIMS 11/8/07]. Also, on December 12, 2007, a Federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California rejected an auto industry lawsuit challenging the California-equivalent rules requiring [See WIMS 12/13/07].
EPA said that California’s current waiver request was distinct from all prior requests. The Agency said, "Previous waiver petitions covered pollutants that predominantly impacted local and regional air quality. Greenhouse gases are fundamentally global in nature, which is unlike the other air pollutants covered by prior California waiver requests. These gases contribute to the challenge of global climate change affecting every state in the union. Therefore, according to the criteria in section 209 of the Clean Air Act, EPA did not find that separate California standards are needed to 'meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.'” The Clean Air Act requires EPA to follow a process when determining waiver requests. EPA must provide a public comment and hearing opportunity. The statute also provides three very specific criteria that EPA should evaluate for any California waiver petition.
EPA held two hearings on the waiver request and the comment period began April 30 and closed June 15, 2007. EPA said it reviewed more than 100,000 written comments and thousands of pages of technical and scientific documentation received during the public comment period. The comments represented a wide scope of interests including those of states and localities, public health and environmental groups, academia, industry and private citizens.
EPA indicated that the two primary approaches for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles are increasing the fuel economy of vehicles and reducing the greenhouse gas emissions associated with their fuel. The Agency said the recently signed energy bill (H.R. 6, now Public Law No: 110-140) addresses both approaches by increasing the fuel economy from vehicles to 35 miles per gallon, an increase of forty percent, as well as increasing the amount of renewable fuel used to 36 billion gallons, nearly a five-fold increase.
California Attorney General Edmund Brown Jr. blasted EPA's rejection of the State's waiver request saying, “It is completely absurd to assert that California does not have a compelling need to fight global warming by curbing greenhouse gas emissions from cars. There is absolutely no legal justification for the Bush administration to deny this request -- Governor Schwarzenegger and I are preparing to sue at the earliest possible moment.” Brown said under the Clean Air Act, California can adopt stricter standards by requesting a waiver from EPA and such requests have been approved more than 50 times in the past. California’s law requires a 30 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions standards from motor vehicles by 2016. The Attorney General said the 16 other states impacted by the decision -- Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Washington -- have adopted, or are in the process of adopting California’s emissions standards. Other reports also list Iowa, making a total of 17 additional states.
On December 21, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) sent a letter to EPA Administrator Johnson saying, "The actions of the EPA in denying the California request cannot help but raise serious questions about the support of the Bush Administration for state efforts to safeguard the environment and the health of their residents. As we discussed, your decision will be challenged immediately in the courts and will be carefully scrutinized by the Congress as well.” In her letter the Speaker said, "Surely you and others in the Bush Administration were aware that the Congress rejected requests from the Administration to waive the Environmental Protection Agency’s longstanding authority to regulate emissions and to grant states waivers under the Clean Air Act. Citing the passage of our new law as a justification for denying California’s request defies the legislative history as well as the explicit language of the 'Energy Independence and Security Act.'”
On December 20, Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) announced that the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which he Chairs was launching an investigation and requested EPA to produce to the Committee "all responsive documents from your office by January 10, 2008. All responsive documents from the Office of Transportation and Air Quality
and the Office of General Counsel should be produced by January 17,2008, and all other responsive documents should be produced by January 23,2008." In his letter, Waxman said, "Your decision appears to have ignored the evidence before the agency and the requirements of the Clean Air Act. In fact, reports indicate that you overruled the unanimous recommendations of EPA's legal and technical staffs in rejecting California's petition."
Environmental groups also reacted, criticizing EPA's decision. Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense said, “This decision is like pulling over the fire trucks on their way to the blaze. For 40 years, EPA administrators have recognized the important role that California plays in innovating new standards to fight pollution.” Jim Marston, general counsel for Environmental Defense said, “New CAFE standards, if they go into effect, do not fully phase in until 2020. The California greenhouse gas limits will occur earlier -- beginning in 2009 and fully phased in by 2016. With the mounting evidence of climate change impacts occurring now, it is imperative that we are take action immediately.”
David Doniger, Climate Center Policy Director for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said, "The EPA administrator claimed the new energy law sets a standard of 35 miles per gallon and thereby precludes California’s more effective standards. That is just plain wrong. The energy law only sets a fuel economy floor. It requires the administration to set standards of ‘at least 35 miles per gallon,’ expressly giving the administration the power to go farther. And the law expressly preserves California’s authority under the Clean Air Act to set independent, stronger standards to meet the challenge of global warming. Let's be clear: the California standard is stronger and more effective than the 35-mile-per-gallon floor established in the new energy law."
Access an EPA release (click here). Access an EPA fact sheet on the CA waiver decision (click here). Access a release from the CA AG (click here). Access a release from Speaker Pelosi and a copy of the letter to EPA (click here). Access the letter from Representative Waxman (click here). Access a lengthy release and link to additional information from Environmental Defense (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access a release from Sierra Club (click here). Access PL 110-140 (click here). Access the 12/12/07 57-page CA Federal Court order (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
Monday, January 26, 2009
President Obama Addresses Climate Change & Energy Independence
Jan 26: In an early morning statement and signing event, President Obama said, "This moment of peril must be turned to one of progress," and signed his first two Presidential Memoranda aimed at defining a path to energy independence. In what he called, "a down payment on a broader and sustained effort to reduce our dependence on foreign oil," he directed the Department of Transportation (DOT) to establish higher Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for carmakers' 2011 model year. In his second memo he directed U.S. EPA to review the California waiver request, previously denied by the Bush administration, that would pave the way for California and some 16 other states to raise emissions standards above and beyond the national standard. President Obama said, "Instead of serving as a partner, Washington stood in their way. The days of Washington dragging its heels are over."
In his opening remarks the President said, "These are extraordinary times, and it calls for swift and extraordinary action. At a time of such great challenge for America, no single issue is as fundamental to our future as energy. America's dependence on oil is one of the most serious threats that our nation has faced. It bankrolls dictators, pays for nuclear proliferation and funds both sides of our struggle against terrorism. It puts the American people at the mercy of shifting gas prices, stifles innovation, and sets back our ability to compete. These urgent dangers to our national and economic security are compounded by the long-term threat of climate change, which, if left unchecked, could result in violent conflict, terrible storms, shrinking coastlines, and irreversible catastrophe. . .
"Year after year, decade after decade, we've chosen delay over decisive action. Rigid ideology has overruled sound science. Special interests have overshadowed common sense. Rhetoric has not led to the hard work needed to achieve results and our leaders raise their voices each time there's a spike on gas prices, only to grow quiet when the price falls at the pump. Now America has arrived at a crossroads. Embedded in American soil, in the wind and the sun, we have the resources to change. Our scientists, businesses and workers have the capacity to move us forward. It falls on us to choose whether to risk the peril that comes with our current course or to seize the promise of energy independence. And for the sake of our security, our economy and our planet, we must have the courage and commitment to change. . .
"Today I'm announcing the first steps on our journey toward energy independence, as we develop new energy, set new fuel efficiency standards and address greenhouse gas emissions. . . First we must take bold action to create a new American energy economy that creates millions of jobs for our people. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan before Congress places a downpayment on this economy. . . Second, we must ensure that the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow are built right here in the United States of America. . . Third, the federal government must work with, not against, states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."
On the California waiver question the President said, "California has shown bold and bipartisan leadership through its effort to forge 21st-century standards, and over a dozen states have followed its lead. But instead of serving as a partner, Washington stood in their way. This refusal to lead risks the creation of a confusing and patchwork set of standards that hurts the environment and the auto industry. . . And that's why I'm directing the Environmental Protection Agency to immediately review the denial of the California waiver request and determine the best way forward. This will help us create incentives to develop new energy that will make us less dependent on the oil that endangers our security, our economy and our planet."
On global climate change, he said, "Finally, we will make it clear to the world that America is ready to lead. To protect our climate and our collective security, we must call together a truly global coalition. I've made it clear that we will act, but so too must the world. That's how we will deny leverage to dictators and dollars to terrorists, and that's how we will ensure that nations like China and India are doing their part, just as we are now willing to do ours. It is time for America to lead because this moment of peril must be turned into one of progress. . . We will not be put off from action because action is hard. Now is the time to make the tough choices. Now is the time to meet the challenge at this crossroad of history by choosing a future that is safer for our country, prosperous for our planet, and sustainable. . ."
Lisa Jackson, the new EPA Administrator also signaled possible actions related to the California waiver in her memo to EPA staff on Friday (January 23) [See WIMS 1/23/09] when she said, "EPA must follow the rule of law. The President recognizes that respect for Congressional mandates and judicial decisions is the hallmark of a principled regulatory agency. Under our environmental laws, EPA has room to exercise discretion, and Congress has often looked to EPA to fill in the details of general policies. However, EPA needs to exercise policy discretion in good faith and in keeping with the directives of Congress and the courts. When Congress has been explicit, EPA cannot misinterpret or ignore the language Congress has used. When a court has determined EPA’s responsibilities under our governing statutes, EPA cannot turn a blind eye to the court’s decision or procrastinate in complying."
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee immediately announced that she would hold a press conference at approximately 6 PM today (January 26) to discuss President Obama's announcement asking EPA to review the Bush Administration's denial of California's request for a Clean Air Act waiver to address global warming emissions from motor vehicles. She said, "When it is granted, the waiver will allow California and 18 other states - representing more than half the U.S. population - to regulate tailpipe emissions of global warming pollution from motor vehicles."
Access a White House posting on the President's announcement (click here). Access the complete transcript of the opening address (click here). Access links to a video of the speech (click here). Access links to the Presidential Memos which should be posted soon (click here). Access a statement from Senator Boxer (click here). Access various WIMS-eNewsUSA blog posts on the California waiver issue (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]
In his opening remarks the President said, "These are extraordinary times, and it calls for swift and extraordinary action. At a time of such great challenge for America, no single issue is as fundamental to our future as energy. America's dependence on oil is one of the most serious threats that our nation has faced. It bankrolls dictators, pays for nuclear proliferation and funds both sides of our struggle against terrorism. It puts the American people at the mercy of shifting gas prices, stifles innovation, and sets back our ability to compete. These urgent dangers to our national and economic security are compounded by the long-term threat of climate change, which, if left unchecked, could result in violent conflict, terrible storms, shrinking coastlines, and irreversible catastrophe. . .
"Year after year, decade after decade, we've chosen delay over decisive action. Rigid ideology has overruled sound science. Special interests have overshadowed common sense. Rhetoric has not led to the hard work needed to achieve results and our leaders raise their voices each time there's a spike on gas prices, only to grow quiet when the price falls at the pump. Now America has arrived at a crossroads. Embedded in American soil, in the wind and the sun, we have the resources to change. Our scientists, businesses and workers have the capacity to move us forward. It falls on us to choose whether to risk the peril that comes with our current course or to seize the promise of energy independence. And for the sake of our security, our economy and our planet, we must have the courage and commitment to change. . .
"Today I'm announcing the first steps on our journey toward energy independence, as we develop new energy, set new fuel efficiency standards and address greenhouse gas emissions. . . First we must take bold action to create a new American energy economy that creates millions of jobs for our people. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan before Congress places a downpayment on this economy. . . Second, we must ensure that the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow are built right here in the United States of America. . . Third, the federal government must work with, not against, states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."
On the California waiver question the President said, "California has shown bold and bipartisan leadership through its effort to forge 21st-century standards, and over a dozen states have followed its lead. But instead of serving as a partner, Washington stood in their way. This refusal to lead risks the creation of a confusing and patchwork set of standards that hurts the environment and the auto industry. . . And that's why I'm directing the Environmental Protection Agency to immediately review the denial of the California waiver request and determine the best way forward. This will help us create incentives to develop new energy that will make us less dependent on the oil that endangers our security, our economy and our planet."
On global climate change, he said, "Finally, we will make it clear to the world that America is ready to lead. To protect our climate and our collective security, we must call together a truly global coalition. I've made it clear that we will act, but so too must the world. That's how we will deny leverage to dictators and dollars to terrorists, and that's how we will ensure that nations like China and India are doing their part, just as we are now willing to do ours. It is time for America to lead because this moment of peril must be turned into one of progress. . . We will not be put off from action because action is hard. Now is the time to make the tough choices. Now is the time to meet the challenge at this crossroad of history by choosing a future that is safer for our country, prosperous for our planet, and sustainable. . ."
Lisa Jackson, the new EPA Administrator also signaled possible actions related to the California waiver in her memo to EPA staff on Friday (January 23) [See WIMS 1/23/09] when she said, "EPA must follow the rule of law. The President recognizes that respect for Congressional mandates and judicial decisions is the hallmark of a principled regulatory agency. Under our environmental laws, EPA has room to exercise discretion, and Congress has often looked to EPA to fill in the details of general policies. However, EPA needs to exercise policy discretion in good faith and in keeping with the directives of Congress and the courts. When Congress has been explicit, EPA cannot misinterpret or ignore the language Congress has used. When a court has determined EPA’s responsibilities under our governing statutes, EPA cannot turn a blind eye to the court’s decision or procrastinate in complying."
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee immediately announced that she would hold a press conference at approximately 6 PM today (January 26) to discuss President Obama's announcement asking EPA to review the Bush Administration's denial of California's request for a Clean Air Act waiver to address global warming emissions from motor vehicles. She said, "When it is granted, the waiver will allow California and 18 other states - representing more than half the U.S. population - to regulate tailpipe emissions of global warming pollution from motor vehicles."
Access a White House posting on the President's announcement (click here). Access the complete transcript of the opening address (click here). Access links to a video of the speech (click here). Access links to the Presidential Memos which should be posted soon (click here). Access a statement from Senator Boxer (click here). Access various WIMS-eNewsUSA blog posts on the California waiver issue (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Green Mountain Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge et al v. Crombie et al
Sep 12: In the U.S. Federal District Court of Vermont (Case No. 2:05-cv-302), Chief Judge William Sessions III, issued a 244-page ruling upholding Vermont’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (GHG) regulations for new motor vehicles. The Judge rejected the auto industry’s main claim that the emission standards are actually fuel economy standards that conflict with the Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act. Judge Sessions also ruled that the GHG emissions standards do not interfere with the foreign policy powers of the President or Congress.
Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell said, “This is such a big win. For those concerned about a healthier environment and those concerned about global warming, this is indeed a day to celebrate.” Vermont's Governor Jim Douglas said, "Most of Vermont’s greenhouse gases are emitted by automobiles and for us to significantly reduce our carbon footprint the innovations that occur in states like Vermont are critical. Setting high -- but achievable -- standards for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles is a tool every state must have the option of employing. Now, thanks to our victory, every state will.”
Senate Environment and Pubic Works Committee Chair, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), issued a brief statement saying, "Today’s decision in the Vermont case is a clear cut victory for cleaning up the environment and combating global warming. It’s a good day for the American people." David Doniger, policy director of the Climate Center at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said, “This is a tremendous step forward for states trying to do everything they can to fight global warming. The ruling affirms the right of any state to choose the emission standard first set by California. This is an essential tool in the fight to prevent the worst impacts of global warming.” Environmental Defense, who helped argue the Vermont case said, “This ruling takes away the last excuse for delay -- it’s time for EPA to clear the way for cleaner cars. The U.S. auto industry should stop litigating and start innovating.”
Dave McCurdy, president & CEO of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) issued a statement saying, "Federal law is designed to ensure a consistent fuel economy program across the country. It makes sense that only the federal government can regulate fuel economy. Automakers support improving fuel economy standards nationally, rather than piecemeal and will continue to work with the Congress, NHTSA and EPA to reduce our oil dependence while increasing fuel economy. Concerning EPA's decision on whether to grant the requested waiver, the Alliance remains committed to working with policymakers to make certain that the EPA's judgment is based on credible, sound scientific data as to what policies truly impact California, its citizens and global climate concerns.The Alliance will continue studying the decision and considering the options, including an appeal." The Alliance is a coalition of 9 car and light truck manufacturers, including BMW Group, DaimlerChrysler, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Mazda, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota and Volkswagen.
Vermont’s regulations incorporate by reference regulations adopted by California in 2005. To date, 11 other states have adopted California’s regulations. The regulations establish one set of GHG emission standards for passenger cars, small trucks, and small Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs), and another set for large trucks and large SUVs. The standards require automobile manufacturers to decrease fleetwide emissions on a graduated basis for each model year between 2009 and 2016. Reductions can be achieved by: (1) use of alternative fuels; (2) air conditioning credits; (3) improved engine/powertrain efficiency, including hybrid vehicles; and (4) other factors (such as reduced tire resistance). When fully phased in, the regulations are expected to reduce motor vehicle GHG emissions by approximately 30%.
The Vermont case began in November 2005, when General Motors, Daimler-Chrysler, two auto industry trade groups, and three Vermont dealers filed two separate lawsuits challenging Vermont’s GHG regulations. The State of New York and a number of environmental groups intervened in the case in support of Vermont. The court held a 16-day trial in April and May of this year, and then accepted final briefs in the middle of June.
Under the federal Clean Air Act, the U.S. EPA must grant a waiver to California for its regulations in order for Vermont’s regulations and those of other states to be effective. California submitted its application to EPA in December of 2005, but EPA has not yet ruled on it. EPA's Administrator Stephen Johnson, has indicated that it will make a decision by the end of this calendar year. Environmental Defense has filed a notice of intent to sue EPA if they do not rule on the California waiver request by November 2007. Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) has introduced legislation in Congress to require EPA to grant the waiver [See WIMS 5/30/07].
In his lengthy and highly organized opinion Judge Sessions discusses the recent Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA [See WIMS 4/2/07] and how that opinion dealt with the arguments of EPA and the auto companies that the only practical way to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles is to require increased fuel economy, and that such regulation would overlap with DOT’s authority to set average fuel economy standards under EPCA [Environmental Policy and Conservation Act]. He said, "The Court rejected outright the argument that EPA is not permitted to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles because it would have to tighten mileage standards, which is the province of the Department of Transportation under EPCA."
In his overall conclusion, Judge Sessions said, "In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court recognized for the first time the phenomenon of global warming and its potentially catastrophic effects upon our environment. The Supreme Court described human-generated contributions to global warming, including carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles, and concluded that EPA has the authority to monitor and regulate such emissions under Section 202 of the CAA... The Supreme Court concluded that EPA’s authority to regulate GHG emissions and NHTSA’s authority to set fuel economy standards overlap but do not conflict, and that the agencies have the duty to work together, particularly with regard to emissions standards that affect fuel economy..."
Regarding the specific question in the Vermont case, Judge Sessions says, "Assuming such a waiver is granted [California waiver request], do the California regulations become 'other motor vehicle standards of the Government' under Section 502 of EPCA? If so, Congress intended NHTSA to take such regulations into consideration when setting CAFE standards, and the question of federal preemption of a state statute does not arise. If EPA-approved California GHG regulations do not enjoy the status of other motor vehicle standards of the Government, or are not shielded from preemption analysis, are those standards preempted, either expressly or by implication, by EPCA’s Section 509(a)?"
He concludes: "...Congress intended California emissions standards for which EPA granted a waiver pursuant to Section 209(b) of the CAA to constitute 'other motor vehicle standards of the Government,' under Section 502 of EPCA. Such a finding is entirely consistent with the language of the statutes, the House and Senate reports that accompanied the legislation, and NHTSA’s practice of taking California standards into consideration when setting CAFE standards... The regulations set GHG emissions standards and are sufficiently unrelated to fuel economy standards not to be expressly preempted... In light of the public statements of industry representatives, history of compliance with previous technological challenges, and the state of the record, the Court remains unconvinced automakers cannot meet the challenges of Vermont and California’s GHG regulations."
Access the complete opinion and order (click here). Access a release from the Vermont AG (click here). Access a release from Governor Douglas (click here). Access links to various media coverage of the decision (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access a release from Environmental Defense (click here).Access a release from the Alliance (click here).[*Climate, *Air, *Energy]
Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell said, “This is such a big win. For those concerned about a healthier environment and those concerned about global warming, this is indeed a day to celebrate.” Vermont's Governor Jim Douglas said, "Most of Vermont’s greenhouse gases are emitted by automobiles and for us to significantly reduce our carbon footprint the innovations that occur in states like Vermont are critical. Setting high -- but achievable -- standards for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles is a tool every state must have the option of employing. Now, thanks to our victory, every state will.”
Senate Environment and Pubic Works Committee Chair, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), issued a brief statement saying, "Today’s decision in the Vermont case is a clear cut victory for cleaning up the environment and combating global warming. It’s a good day for the American people." David Doniger, policy director of the Climate Center at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said, “This is a tremendous step forward for states trying to do everything they can to fight global warming. The ruling affirms the right of any state to choose the emission standard first set by California. This is an essential tool in the fight to prevent the worst impacts of global warming.” Environmental Defense, who helped argue the Vermont case said, “This ruling takes away the last excuse for delay -- it’s time for EPA to clear the way for cleaner cars. The U.S. auto industry should stop litigating and start innovating.”
Dave McCurdy, president & CEO of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) issued a statement saying, "Federal law is designed to ensure a consistent fuel economy program across the country. It makes sense that only the federal government can regulate fuel economy. Automakers support improving fuel economy standards nationally, rather than piecemeal and will continue to work with the Congress, NHTSA and EPA to reduce our oil dependence while increasing fuel economy. Concerning EPA's decision on whether to grant the requested waiver, the Alliance remains committed to working with policymakers to make certain that the EPA's judgment is based on credible, sound scientific data as to what policies truly impact California, its citizens and global climate concerns.The Alliance will continue studying the decision and considering the options, including an appeal." The Alliance is a coalition of 9 car and light truck manufacturers, including BMW Group, DaimlerChrysler, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Mazda, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota and Volkswagen.
Vermont’s regulations incorporate by reference regulations adopted by California in 2005. To date, 11 other states have adopted California’s regulations. The regulations establish one set of GHG emission standards for passenger cars, small trucks, and small Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs), and another set for large trucks and large SUVs. The standards require automobile manufacturers to decrease fleetwide emissions on a graduated basis for each model year between 2009 and 2016. Reductions can be achieved by: (1) use of alternative fuels; (2) air conditioning credits; (3) improved engine/powertrain efficiency, including hybrid vehicles; and (4) other factors (such as reduced tire resistance). When fully phased in, the regulations are expected to reduce motor vehicle GHG emissions by approximately 30%.
The Vermont case began in November 2005, when General Motors, Daimler-Chrysler, two auto industry trade groups, and three Vermont dealers filed two separate lawsuits challenging Vermont’s GHG regulations. The State of New York and a number of environmental groups intervened in the case in support of Vermont. The court held a 16-day trial in April and May of this year, and then accepted final briefs in the middle of June.
Under the federal Clean Air Act, the U.S. EPA must grant a waiver to California for its regulations in order for Vermont’s regulations and those of other states to be effective. California submitted its application to EPA in December of 2005, but EPA has not yet ruled on it. EPA's Administrator Stephen Johnson, has indicated that it will make a decision by the end of this calendar year. Environmental Defense has filed a notice of intent to sue EPA if they do not rule on the California waiver request by November 2007. Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) has introduced legislation in Congress to require EPA to grant the waiver [See WIMS 5/30/07].
In his lengthy and highly organized opinion Judge Sessions discusses the recent Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA [See WIMS 4/2/07] and how that opinion dealt with the arguments of EPA and the auto companies that the only practical way to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles is to require increased fuel economy, and that such regulation would overlap with DOT’s authority to set average fuel economy standards under EPCA [Environmental Policy and Conservation Act]. He said, "The Court rejected outright the argument that EPA is not permitted to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles because it would have to tighten mileage standards, which is the province of the Department of Transportation under EPCA."
In his overall conclusion, Judge Sessions said, "In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court recognized for the first time the phenomenon of global warming and its potentially catastrophic effects upon our environment. The Supreme Court described human-generated contributions to global warming, including carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles, and concluded that EPA has the authority to monitor and regulate such emissions under Section 202 of the CAA... The Supreme Court concluded that EPA’s authority to regulate GHG emissions and NHTSA’s authority to set fuel economy standards overlap but do not conflict, and that the agencies have the duty to work together, particularly with regard to emissions standards that affect fuel economy..."
Regarding the specific question in the Vermont case, Judge Sessions says, "Assuming such a waiver is granted [California waiver request], do the California regulations become 'other motor vehicle standards of the Government' under Section 502 of EPCA? If so, Congress intended NHTSA to take such regulations into consideration when setting CAFE standards, and the question of federal preemption of a state statute does not arise. If EPA-approved California GHG regulations do not enjoy the status of other motor vehicle standards of the Government, or are not shielded from preemption analysis, are those standards preempted, either expressly or by implication, by EPCA’s Section 509(a)?"
He concludes: "...Congress intended California emissions standards for which EPA granted a waiver pursuant to Section 209(b) of the CAA to constitute 'other motor vehicle standards of the Government,' under Section 502 of EPCA. Such a finding is entirely consistent with the language of the statutes, the House and Senate reports that accompanied the legislation, and NHTSA’s practice of taking California standards into consideration when setting CAFE standards... The regulations set GHG emissions standards and are sufficiently unrelated to fuel economy standards not to be expressly preempted... In light of the public statements of industry representatives, history of compliance with previous technological challenges, and the state of the record, the Court remains unconvinced automakers cannot meet the challenges of Vermont and California’s GHG regulations."
Access the complete opinion and order (click here). Access a release from the Vermont AG (click here). Access a release from Governor Douglas (click here). Access links to various media coverage of the decision (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access a release from Environmental Defense (click here).Access a release from the Alliance (click here).[*Climate, *Air, *Energy]
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Senator Boxer Presses On For CA Waiver Denial Records
Feb 26: U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), held a press conference to release details of U.S. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson's decision to deny California's request for a waiver to regulate global warming pollution from vehicles. Senator Boxer said, "These documents paint a picture of an Environmental Protection Agency in crisis. They show the dedicated professional staff of the EPA working hard to do what they are paid to do by the American people -- protect our health and our environment. At the same time, we see more and more evidence of Administrator Johnson ignoring the science and the facts, and discarding the advice of his professional staff.
"I believe this decision will be reversed by the next President or by the courts, but the Administrator can save the taxpayers time and money, and can get us started cleaning up our air if he would simply follow the law, the facts, and the advice of his agency professionals."
In a release, Senator Boxer highlighted excerpts from the EPA briefing documents shown to the EPW Committee staff. She said EPA has not released these documents to the committee or to the public, despite ongoing requests. Boxer also issued a statement regarding the role that former U.S. EPA Administrator William Reilly played in urging current EPA Administrator Johnson to grant California's request for a waiver to regulate global warming pollution from vehicles.
She said, "We now know that not only was the professional staff of the EPA advising Administrator Johnson to grant the California waiver, but Bill Reilly, the EPA Administrator under President Bush's father, also contacted the EPA and discussed the serious implications of the decision with senior EPA staff. He then communicated his concern directly to Administrator Johnson. The bipartisan chorus of respected voices urging Mr. Johnson to do the right thing is overwhelming. The impact of the decision to deny the waiver has been devastating on the EPA, and Administrator Johnson must reverse course and grant California's petition now. We are losing precious time in cleaning up our air."
In another letter to Administrator Johnson, dated February 26, Senator Boxer continues to press for the release of all documents related to the EPA denial of the California waiver. She reminds the Administrator that he promised the release of all documents by February 15, when he appeared before the EPW Committee on January 24. She said, "According to EPA staff, these documents are being withheld because they are still being reviewed by other executive agencies as well as by the White House Counsel's office." In addition, she adds, ". . .the continued provision of the heavily redacted documents remains unacceptable. EPA is obligated to produce all of these records -- in complete and un-redacted form, and without restrictions -- so that the EPW Committee can exercise its oversight jurisdiction." She has now requested that all remaining records no later than March 5, 2008.
Access a release with highlights and links to the 27-pages of information received thus far; a waiver chronology; the press conference charts; the letter to Administrator Johnson; and a webcast of the press conference (click here). Access a release on William Reilly (click here). Access various WIMS eNewsUSA Blog posts on the waiver denial (click here).[*Climate,*Energy,*Air]
"I believe this decision will be reversed by the next President or by the courts, but the Administrator can save the taxpayers time and money, and can get us started cleaning up our air if he would simply follow the law, the facts, and the advice of his agency professionals."
In a release, Senator Boxer highlighted excerpts from the EPA briefing documents shown to the EPW Committee staff. She said EPA has not released these documents to the committee or to the public, despite ongoing requests. Boxer also issued a statement regarding the role that former U.S. EPA Administrator William Reilly played in urging current EPA Administrator Johnson to grant California's request for a waiver to regulate global warming pollution from vehicles.
She said, "We now know that not only was the professional staff of the EPA advising Administrator Johnson to grant the California waiver, but Bill Reilly, the EPA Administrator under President Bush's father, also contacted the EPA and discussed the serious implications of the decision with senior EPA staff. He then communicated his concern directly to Administrator Johnson. The bipartisan chorus of respected voices urging Mr. Johnson to do the right thing is overwhelming. The impact of the decision to deny the waiver has been devastating on the EPA, and Administrator Johnson must reverse course and grant California's petition now. We are losing precious time in cleaning up our air."
In another letter to Administrator Johnson, dated February 26, Senator Boxer continues to press for the release of all documents related to the EPA denial of the California waiver. She reminds the Administrator that he promised the release of all documents by February 15, when he appeared before the EPW Committee on January 24. She said, "According to EPA staff, these documents are being withheld because they are still being reviewed by other executive agencies as well as by the White House Counsel's office." In addition, she adds, ". . .the continued provision of the heavily redacted documents remains unacceptable. EPA is obligated to produce all of these records -- in complete and un-redacted form, and without restrictions -- so that the EPW Committee can exercise its oversight jurisdiction." She has now requested that all remaining records no later than March 5, 2008.
Access a release with highlights and links to the 27-pages of information received thus far; a waiver chronology; the press conference charts; the letter to Administrator Johnson; and a webcast of the press conference (click here). Access a release on William Reilly (click here). Access various WIMS eNewsUSA Blog posts on the waiver denial (click here).[*Climate,*Energy,*Air]
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Waxman Exposes Presidential Interference In EPA Rulemaking
May 20: Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA), Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform indicates that the Committee's investigation has uncovered details of White House involvement in EPA’s regulation of ozone on the eve of a court imposed deadline, forcing EPA staff to scrap a standard supported by its independent panel and to perform “emergency rewrites” to the regulation. Waxman said, "Documents obtained by the Committee show that EPA staff raised serious concerns about the merits and legality of the decision." Waxman also released extensive documentation on the Committee's investigation of the California waiver request decision (See more below).
On March 12, 2008, at approximately 6 PM, on the court-ordered deadline date, U.S. EPA met its requirements under the Clean Air Act and a court-ordered deadline by signing the new primary 8-hour ozone the final National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) of 0.075 parts per million (ppm) and the new secondary standard at a form and level identical to the primary standard. The previous primary and secondary standards were identical 8-hour standards, set at 0.08 ppm; however, EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Ozone Panel had unanimously recommended a substantially stronger standard in the range of 0.060 to 0.070 ppm.
Waxman released a 12-page memorandum providing additional information about EPA's revision of the national ambient air quality standards for ozone and said the findings were based on a review of approximately 30,000 pages of previously undisclosed documents received from EPA and the White House Office of Management and Budget, as well as publicly available documents. Many of the documents are posted on the Committee's website. The memo indicates that, "The Committee's investigation shows that the process that led to the new standards was highly unusual, particularly the process of setting the secondary standard. . ."
The memo continues, "Late on March 11, the evening before the court-ordered deadline, EPA was informed that the President had rejected the position of the EPA Administrator and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. This decision set off what one official described as an 'emergency rewrite' to justify setting the secondary standard at the same level as the primary standard, as the White House directed. The final rule dropped the language in the draft that concluded a cumulative, seasonal standard was 'necessary ... to ensure the requisite degree of protection.' In its place, the final rule stated: 'The Administrator ... does not believe that an alternative cumulative, seasonal standard is needed.' The documents show that the EPA staff questioned both the legality and motivation for the last-minute change in the secondary standard . . ."
"The Committee sought to learn the basis for the President's decision to reject the recommendations of the EPA Administrator and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. The White House, however, is withholding hundreds of pages of documents that would explain what happened inside the White House. . . "
On May 20, the Committee held a hearing on, “EPA’s New Ozone Standards.”Witnesses included: Stephen Johnson, EPA Administrator; Susan Dudley, Administrator of OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; Dr. Rogene Henderson, Chair, Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee; and representatives of the Union Of Concerned Scientists; Natural Resources Defense Council; an Advisor on Toxicology and Human Heath Risk Analysis; and a Partner with the law firm of Sidley Austin, LLP.
In an opening statement, Representative Waxman said, "For months this Committee has been investigating recent Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decisions relating to both global warming and new air quality standards. And after reviewing nearly 60 thousand pages of internal documents and interviewing officials involved in the rulemakings, we have found evidence that the White House again ignored the facts and the law."
Waxman cites recent instances where the White House intervened in the California waiver petition to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light-duty trucks and then in the NAAQS ozone rulemaking. He said the Committee's investigation revealed that "EPA officials were astounded by the President's decision and said it wasn't supported by either the science or the law." One official wrote: "I have been working on National Ambient Air Quality Standards for over 30 years and have yet to see anything like this."
Waxman said, "The same thing happened in a third critical rulemaking. Last April, the Supreme Court directed EPA to determine whether CO2 emissions endanger health and the environment and must be regulated under the Clean Air Act. . . In each of these rulemakings, the pattern is the same: the President apparently insisted on his judgment and overrode the unanimous recommendations of EPA's scientific and legal experts. Our investigation has not been able to find any evidence that the President based his decisions on the science, the record, or the law. Indeed, there's virtually no credible record of any kind in support of the decisions.
"I recognize and support the broad powers our Constitution vests with the President of the United States. But the President does not have absolute power and he is not above the law. The President may have a personal opinion about the new ozone standards, California's motor vehicle standards, and regulating CO2, but he is not allowed to elevate his view above the requirements of the law."
In a separate release of investigative documents, on May 19, Chairman Waxman posted extensive information on the Committee's investigation of California's request for a waiver to enforce its greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars and trucks. Waxman said the new documents and testimony obtained by the Committee show that EPA career staff unanimously supported granting California’s request. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson also supported granting the petition, at least in part, until he communicated with the White House.
According to a 20-page Committee memo on the California waiver decision, "During the course of the investigation, the Committee obtained over 27,000 pages of documents from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and deposed or interviewed eight key officials. This memorandum summarizes some of the significant evidence the Committee has received. The record before the Committee shows: (l) the career staff at EPA unanimously supported granting California's petition; (2) Stephen Johnson, the Administrator of EPA, also supported granting California's petition at least in part; and (3) Administrator Johnson reversed his position after communications with officials in the White House."
Access the May 20 hearing website with links to all testimony and related information (click here). Access links to the May 20 Ozone memo and extensive related documents (click here). Access links to the May 19 CA waiver memo and extensive related documents (click here). Access various eNewsUSA Blog posts on the Ozone NAAQS issue (click here); and the CA waiver issue (click here). [*Air, *Climate, *Energy]
On March 12, 2008, at approximately 6 PM, on the court-ordered deadline date, U.S. EPA met its requirements under the Clean Air Act and a court-ordered deadline by signing the new primary 8-hour ozone the final National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) of 0.075 parts per million (ppm) and the new secondary standard at a form and level identical to the primary standard. The previous primary and secondary standards were identical 8-hour standards, set at 0.08 ppm; however, EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Ozone Panel had unanimously recommended a substantially stronger standard in the range of 0.060 to 0.070 ppm.
Waxman released a 12-page memorandum providing additional information about EPA's revision of the national ambient air quality standards for ozone and said the findings were based on a review of approximately 30,000 pages of previously undisclosed documents received from EPA and the White House Office of Management and Budget, as well as publicly available documents. Many of the documents are posted on the Committee's website. The memo indicates that, "The Committee's investigation shows that the process that led to the new standards was highly unusual, particularly the process of setting the secondary standard. . ."
The memo continues, "Late on March 11, the evening before the court-ordered deadline, EPA was informed that the President had rejected the position of the EPA Administrator and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. This decision set off what one official described as an 'emergency rewrite' to justify setting the secondary standard at the same level as the primary standard, as the White House directed. The final rule dropped the language in the draft that concluded a cumulative, seasonal standard was 'necessary ... to ensure the requisite degree of protection.' In its place, the final rule stated: 'The Administrator ... does not believe that an alternative cumulative, seasonal standard is needed.' The documents show that the EPA staff questioned both the legality and motivation for the last-minute change in the secondary standard . . ."
"The Committee sought to learn the basis for the President's decision to reject the recommendations of the EPA Administrator and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. The White House, however, is withholding hundreds of pages of documents that would explain what happened inside the White House. . . "
On May 20, the Committee held a hearing on, “EPA’s New Ozone Standards.”Witnesses included: Stephen Johnson, EPA Administrator; Susan Dudley, Administrator of OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; Dr. Rogene Henderson, Chair, Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee; and representatives of the Union Of Concerned Scientists; Natural Resources Defense Council; an Advisor on Toxicology and Human Heath Risk Analysis; and a Partner with the law firm of Sidley Austin, LLP.
In an opening statement, Representative Waxman said, "For months this Committee has been investigating recent Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decisions relating to both global warming and new air quality standards. And after reviewing nearly 60 thousand pages of internal documents and interviewing officials involved in the rulemakings, we have found evidence that the White House again ignored the facts and the law."
Waxman cites recent instances where the White House intervened in the California waiver petition to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light-duty trucks and then in the NAAQS ozone rulemaking. He said the Committee's investigation revealed that "EPA officials were astounded by the President's decision and said it wasn't supported by either the science or the law." One official wrote: "I have been working on National Ambient Air Quality Standards for over 30 years and have yet to see anything like this."
Waxman said, "The same thing happened in a third critical rulemaking. Last April, the Supreme Court directed EPA to determine whether CO2 emissions endanger health and the environment and must be regulated under the Clean Air Act. . . In each of these rulemakings, the pattern is the same: the President apparently insisted on his judgment and overrode the unanimous recommendations of EPA's scientific and legal experts. Our investigation has not been able to find any evidence that the President based his decisions on the science, the record, or the law. Indeed, there's virtually no credible record of any kind in support of the decisions.
"I recognize and support the broad powers our Constitution vests with the President of the United States. But the President does not have absolute power and he is not above the law. The President may have a personal opinion about the new ozone standards, California's motor vehicle standards, and regulating CO2, but he is not allowed to elevate his view above the requirements of the law."
In a separate release of investigative documents, on May 19, Chairman Waxman posted extensive information on the Committee's investigation of California's request for a waiver to enforce its greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars and trucks. Waxman said the new documents and testimony obtained by the Committee show that EPA career staff unanimously supported granting California’s request. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson also supported granting the petition, at least in part, until he communicated with the White House.
According to a 20-page Committee memo on the California waiver decision, "During the course of the investigation, the Committee obtained over 27,000 pages of documents from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and deposed or interviewed eight key officials. This memorandum summarizes some of the significant evidence the Committee has received. The record before the Committee shows: (l) the career staff at EPA unanimously supported granting California's petition; (2) Stephen Johnson, the Administrator of EPA, also supported granting California's petition at least in part; and (3) Administrator Johnson reversed his position after communications with officials in the White House."
Access the May 20 hearing website with links to all testimony and related information (click here). Access links to the May 20 Ozone memo and extensive related documents (click here). Access links to the May 19 CA waiver memo and extensive related documents (click here). Access various eNewsUSA Blog posts on the Ozone NAAQS issue (click here); and the CA waiver issue (click here). [*Air, *Climate, *Energy]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
