Remember EPA head Stephen Johnson? His tale has been keeping us busy for a while, particularly because he's been battling with California over the state's desire to regulate tailpipe emissions, something Johnson says they can't do. Johnson has found other ways to slow down emissions regulations and skip out on meeting with Democratic Senators. And let's not forget this story about Johnson. Whew.

After all this, former Congressman Walter Fauntroy has drawn up a series of reasons why Johnson Must Go. The petition calls on Johnson to resign and specifically points out the following charge relating to vehicle issues:

In August 2003, the Bush Administration denied a petition to regulate CO2 emissions from motor vehicles by deciding that CO2 was not a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled that determination in Massachusetts v. EPA, which ruled that "If EPA makes a finding of endangerment, the Clean Air Act requires the agency to regulate emissions of the deleterious pollutant from new motor vehicles." Johnson's EPA set ozone pollution limits at unhealthy levels after rejecting the recommendations of the EPA's own scientists -- and then weakened those limits further after a late-night intervention by President Bush on the eve of announcing the new standards.

ABG reader Marty O. said the call was a "Cool New Web Site For [The EPA] Boss." Whaddya think?

[Source: Johnson Must Go, Thanks to Marty .O for the tip!]

CARB's meeting today is scheduled to go until at least 10 pm EST. We'll report on the news of the day once things are over, but if you'd like to keep a tab on what's going on right now, check out this page for ways to stream the audio and video feed from California. I heard a bit of Who Killed the Electric Car? director Chris Paine's testimony (he called the hearing a bit of a cast reunion) and I believe the California EPA will keep to hearing available online in an archive, so if you can't watch now, you can check it out later. Enjoy.

[Source: CA EPA, thanks to Joseph]

We have a new chapter to add to the EPA vs. state regulations soap opera. EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson has finally given a reason why the EPA is anti-state rules. Basically, Johnson says the EPS does not see enough proof of increased climate change in California compared to the rest of the nation to justify separate rules. Still, he admits that EPA's authorization of separate pollution rules in the '60s and '70s were justified because air quality was considerably worse in California than in the rest of the U.S. You can read more of Johnson's statement after the jump

Reactions have been, to say the least, intense. For instance, California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown dismissed Johnson's arguments as "obfuscating, sabotaging . . . specious, ill-founded. . . . We're going to fight him until he's sent packing by the next president." Environmentalists said that 18 states have either adopted the California rules or announced their intentions to do so, and the resulting curbs on greenhouse gas emissions would have beneficial effects across the nation (and the world). S. William Becker, executive director of the National Assn. of Clean Air Agencies said the EPA position was "a shameful attack on states' rights."

Related:

• CAFE what? California law could require 40-plus miles per gallon by 2020
• Automakers' Rep. John Dingell renews attempt to block state CO₂ regs
• Florida joins California in lawsuit against the EPA over new emissions rules
• EPA says no to California greenhouse gas rules waiver

While the federal government massages the details of the 35-by-2020 CAFE standard into existence and the
EPA and California (along with other states) are in court over state-based CO₂ emissions laws, regulators in California are moving ahead with proposals to force automakers to sell vehicles with a fleet average of over 40 mpg by 2020 in that state based on greenhouse gas emissions. Since at least 15 other states have signed on to California's auto laws, the California rules could mean that almost a third of the states in the U.S. (those that make up about half the U.S. new-vehicle market) would have laws much stricter than the federal CAFE standard. The auto industry - surprise - is vehemently against this proposal but the three remaining major presidential candidates, according to Automotive News, are in favor of allowing states to enforce their own greenhouse gas rules.

[Source: Automotive News]

Big legal news out of California today. A federal judge has just ruled that the State of California does have the right to regulate vehicles' greenhouse gas emissions. This decision goes against the automakers' wishes. They prefer that the federal government set national standards. Naturally, it is easier for them to build a car that can meet national standards and then be sold anywhere in the U.S.

Here's AP writer Samantha Young:

[The automakers] argued that a federal energy law passed in 1975 gives the U.S. Department of Transportation sole jurisdiction over fuel economy. But [Judge] Ishii rejected that claim, saying Congress gave California and the EPA the authority to regulate vehicle emissions, even if those rules are more strict than those imposed by the federal government.

If this ruling stands, and California get a waiver from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to enforce the state's emissions standards, then the automakers might have to design and build a variety of cars and powerplants to meet each state's standards. In California, the AP reminds us, those standards were set in 2004 and call for a roughly 30 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2016. The EPA has said it will decide before the end of the year if that waiver will be approved.

I wonder if U.S. District Court Judge Anthony Ishii will now become a bit of a hero to some in the environmental movement, as it was his decision that California Attorney General Jerry Brown is calling "a major victory and a giant step forward for California." Brown is also involved in the suit that is asking the federal government to limit emissions on oceangoing ships. More news to come on this, without a doubt.

Related:

• California and environmental groups to sue EPA over emissions rules
• Judge dismisses California greenhouse nuisance lawsuit

[Source: Samantha Young / Associated Press]