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!]

As TalkingPointsMemo put it, "no Bush Administration official, current or former, can hold a candle to EPA chief Stephen Johnson when it comes to chutzpah." Why would TPM say something like this? Well, do you remember the Supreme Court's decision that the EPA would, indeed, need to regulate vehicle greenhouse-gas emissions? It happened exactly one year ago today. Since that time, the EPA has found ways to slow down the process and Johnson has now come up with an unhelpful scheme to delay any action. Seriously delay.

WardsAuto reports that by opening up the decision to public comments, Johnson "could delay regulation until as late as 2009." Two years to take action on cleaner air? That's a Bush Administration official for ya. U.S. Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), who's no fan of regulating automakers, said, "I recognize that the current Clean Air Act may not be the best mechanism for regulating greenhouse gases. But it is puzzling and disappointing that the Bush Admin. hasn't offered an alternative or joined the effort to design and enact comprehensive climate-change legislation." When the Dingellsaurus is on your case for not taking action on climate change, you're a rare breed.

[Source: WardsAuto, TalkingPointsMemo]

Following the U.S. Supreme Court decision last year that the EPA had jurisdiction to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide, the agency began formulating regulations. By December of 2007, they had a proposal ready to go that would have effectively mandated a 35mpg standard by 2018. That would have put it two years ahead of what was ultimately passed in the energy bill. In January of this year EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson told a Senate committee that the agency would release CO₂ standards by March. As you might have guessed, no such thing has happened.

In fact, during hearings before the House Oversight Committee this week, Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) revealed that work on the CO₂ rules ended last December. While the committee investigated the EPA decision to deny California's request for a waiver allowing them to regulate CO₂ emissions, they were told that the work stopped as a result of pressure from the Bush Administration. Waxman has requested a copy of the draft rules which were submitted to the White House, but the EPA hasn't yet decided whether to comply. The decision not to proceed may have been triggered by some legal language from Administrator Johnson. The draft regulation was accompanied by a legal finding that carbon emissions endangered public welfare rather than public health. Without the latter finding there was less of a requirement for new regulations under the current law.

[Source: Detroit News]

Recently, I told you that California Senator Barbara Boxer invited EPA head Stephen Johnson to a field meeting today, January 10th. I joked then "If I were Steve, I would try to catch the flu before January 10 or settle on some other reason not to go." Well, Stephen must read AutoblogGreen because he did not show up today. Barbara did leave a chair empty just in case. Barbara also put out an empty box labeled "EPA Documents" because Stephen did not send the documents she asked for either.

What do you think readers? Was it Sen. Boxer's fault for not RSVP'ing when Stephen might have caught the flu? Or maybe Stephen was picking up another award today like he is in the picture on the right from the auto industry? All joking aside, do you think this was a failure of our checks and balances system or do you feel the field meeting would have been all-for-show anyway?

Related:

• Video: EPA head ignored entire staff in denying CA waiver says Sen. Boxer
• VP Cheney met with automakers before EPA denied CA waiver
• Pelosi to EPA head on CA waiver denial: "I vigorously disagree with your rationale," "strongly support the inquiry"
• President Bush explains why EPA denied California's waiver to regulate tailpipe emissions

[Source: Senate.gov]

Just two weeks after the EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson turned down California's request for a waiver allowing the state to regulate greenhouse gases, things are moving to court. California has followed trough on their promise to take the EPA to court by filing suit in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The grounds for the suit is that the EPA failed to adequately explain the reasons for denying the waiver. If California's regulations are allowed to go ahead it would effectively mandate a fleet fuel economy average of 44 mpg by 2020, significantly more than the 35mpg required by the recently passed federal energy bill. Fifteen other states have also adopted or are in the process of taking on California's environmental regulations. The Bush administration and the automakers will obviously be fighting this lawsuit vigorously because, after all, the last thing anyone in this administration wants to do is explain their actions.

[Source: Detroit News]

It looks like Bush is trying to avoid the massive sh*t storm building around the EPA head's decision to deny the California waiver. Check out this exchange from today's press briefing at the White House:

Q Under what authority can the President tell California it can't have tougher global warming levels than the national strategy that he said he wanted?

MR. FRATTO: I mean, the President didn't tell California that, but the EPA Administrator made his independent decision on whether to approve or not approve that waiver. He made a decision not to approve the California waiver, and as he explained, I think, he made that based on what he thought was best for the nation in addressing this issue. And he pointed to the really significant policy changes that are going to come through from the energy bill that we signed last week.

Q -- no longer supports the kind of states' rights that he did when he was governor?

MR. FRATTO: There's always a balance. And he does support -- he does have a healthy respect for states' rights. But these decisions need to be made in terms of what is best for the country. We support EPA Administrator Johnson's decision, but it was his decision to make.

The president didn't tell California that, independent decision, I think he made, Bush supports state rights... ah, the EPA head serves at the pleasure of the president and Bush does not sound too pleased. If I were EPA administrator Stephen Johnson, I would start cleaning out my desk right now. The video above shows Arnold saying he is going to sue as quickly as possible to get his state that waiver.

[Source: White House]