Filed under: MPG, Legislation and Policy, USA
Video: EPA head ignored entire staff in denying CA waiver says Sen. Boxer
Outspoken California senator, Barbara Boxer, had a memorable visit to the NewsHour yesterday, supporting California's right to regulate tail pipe emissions. In the highlights clip above which, you can see choice lines like "the cheese stands alone" and the mention of a Washington Post article that says the entire EPA staff told EPA head Stephen Johnson to allow the waiver. Here is a quote from that Washington Post article:
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen L. Johnson yesterday denied California's petition to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, overruling the unanimous recommendation of the agency's legal and technical staffs.
The Governator says he "will sue to overturn this ruling as quickly as possible." Rep. Waxman has started an investigation and more lawsuits and investigations are widely expected. This isn't over.
Related:
[Source: Newshour, Washington Post]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Mort 2:11PM (12/21/2007)
This is an outrage. If congreffs passes a law that I can dump nerve gas into any river I want, the states can't pass stricter measures. I hate all Bushs everywhere.
Reply
Whopper 2:49PM (12/21/2007)
Mort, your statement is ludicrous. Standards that affect interstate transportation, among others, must be controlled on a federal level. To do otherwise would be chaotic.
Reply
Rojo 4:20PM (12/21/2007)
Oh come on, Whopper. You can't really tell me that you think complete and total legal anarchy in the US wouldn't work?
The finger-pointing, faultless, morally, ethically and politically correct elite lawmakers in California could never be wrong!
Here's the nuts and bolts that they can't get their heads around: By allowing California (last I checked a pretty huge, if vapid, state) to regulate emissions by law, car makers will have to waste more money on R&D, not to mention production, for multiple standards for different areas of the country. This. Method. Damages. The. US. Economy. US car makers would then fall further behind on new research (such as... *gasp* the Volt!) because they have to go through twice the R&D on any new ICE drive system or overhaul of an existing power train just to satisfy more special California emissions laws.
The true goal behind this (which I really don't disagree with, honestly) is to get all car makers on PHEVs, EVs, Hydrogen, whatever.
BUT, in the case that the Feds were to allow Cali to do this, the car makers would have only two economically feasible options in the short-term.
1) Don't make cali-compliant cars at all, thereby giving them the finger while cutting off a huge consumer base. I would personally find this tragically hilarious.
2) Here's the BIG one. Make everything to Cali's standards. This, in turn, pisses off consumers in other states. Also, this would seriously piss of the Feds. Woah, nope. Nuh uh. Here's where the Feds put and end to it. State legislation does NOT override Federal legislation. PERIOD.
Remember that time, way back in the day, when we had that same argument over State law vs. Federal law? Yeah, that didn't go so well, did it?
Reply
roz 6:42PM (12/21/2007)
In the past, California has been granted waivers to pursue more aggressive clean air rules for mobile sources because Federal standards were insufficient to handle the affects of pollution in those areas. While it is true that global warming pollutants carry affects that have a global scale, there is currently no EPA policy that has been shown to be sufficient to deal with pollutants that cause global warming. Absent such policy it is hard to understand why they would block states from pursuing any number of measures that address global warming.
While it may be the case that a Federal standard to deal with global warming would be more efficient for auto makers, no where has it been shown that Federal policy, including the new Energy legislation is sufficient to address the harm created by GHG emissions. The EPA has an obligation to create a policy to protect the environment. They have not done this work. We don't know that increased CAFE standards by 2020 is a sufficient answer to the threat of global warming.
"Here's where the Feds put and end to it. State legislation does NOT override Federal legislation. PERIOD."
Federal authority only trumps state power where the Constitution grants it. States can regulate goods sold within their jurisdiction if they choose to.
"car makers will have to waste more money on R&D, not to mention production, for multiple standards for different areas of the country"
How much R&D is needed when they already sells compliant cars in other markets such as Europe. We see all the time cars that have much better MPG that are simply not brought to the US market. Its not an R&D resources problem. Its that the market for this category of product is undeveloped. Granted, government mandates for vehicle efficiency are not the best mechanism to develop these markets, but its wrong to say, when more efficient cars are already being sold, that its an issue of technology.
Reply
Dad 8:37PM (12/21/2007)
"overruling the unanimous recommendation of the agency's legal and technical staffs."
And the Washington Post would never lie or misrepresent the truth, would they?????
Reply
gsolman6 11:14PM (12/21/2007)
I think if CA can implement higher standards then what would see is certain models not being sold in CA or those same vehicles with inflated price tags to control demand and get in line with the CO2 averages. Actually it is pretty much the same thing with what is happening now between U.S. and European models. Ford does not sell F-150s in Europe but sells the Focus in Europe and the U.S. Substitute CA for Europe in the previous sentence and there you go. Of course they would sell a few F-150s in CA but at prices that would make it reasonable for only those that really need it..............I'm in favor of all of the above.
Reply
vfx 5:56PM (12/27/2007)
There are reasons why Mexico City (a valley) and Hawaii (a wind swept island) need different rules regulating stuff that goes in the air.
We have 50 states. They either have to have self control of their air or every state has to have the strongest control that the smoggiest state needs.
Reply
KW 4:59PM (1/21/2008)
I think the main point is that it is important to have one standard when dealing with automotive fuel economy/GHG emissions. The courts have already ruled that it is okay for states to make their own standards to protect the air. So after California makes a 40 mpg standard, Maine says, "Hey, we're more progressive than California, let's make the standard 45 mpg." So now the auto makers have to make a different car for California and a different one for Maine. Then Oregon says, "Well, we'll show everyone how progressive we are, in spite of the fact that we've already adopted California standards, let's make some new standards and show those wimps in Maine who the real "Green State" is." So then they bump up the standards to 50 mpg. Now the auto makers have to make three different cars, since the people in Oklahoma don't want a Chevy Malibu that costs $2500 more for the fuel economy add-ons. So GM has to make a car for each different location that chooses to make their own standards. At worst there will be 50 different standards, with each auto maker trying to keep customers happy in each area by keeping prices low (i.e. not adding on more fuel economy stuff than needed). By allowing each state to make their own standards you open the floodgates of "one-upmanship" for every political wanna-be in the country. What is at stake is the cost of cars, and our own ability to make decisions on what we want.
Reply