Johnson's nuts

Analysis of the EPA's decision to deny California's waiver

Posted by David Roberts at 4:36 PM on 19 Dec 2007

As I mentioned below, today the U.S. EPA denied California's request for a waiver exempting it from federal fuel economy standards, allowing it to implement its own standards. EPA administrator Stephen Johnson announced the decision in a rushed press conference following President Bush's signing of the energy bill.

The announcement came with a veritable torrent of dishonest spin. Let me try to disentangle some of it.

1. Johnson leaned heavily on today's passage of the energy bill, saying that a "uniform national standard" is preferable to a "confusing patchwork of state standards."

The "patchwork" line is completely disingenuous. There aren't multiple standards in different states. There's one: California's standard, which other states can choose by law to adopt, or not. Seventeen states, representing over half the U.S. population, have pledged to adopt it.

2. Johnson said that he'd had "hours and hours" of briefing from the EPA's "world-class professional staff," which provided him with many "pros and cons" upon which he based his decision.

There's good reason to believe this is false. According to House Oversight Committee chair Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and other sources, the EPA's professional staff was cut out of the debate (PDF), which proceeded almost entirely on political grounds. Indeed, EPA staff overwhelmingly believes that the waiver should be granted. [Juliet Eilperin confirmed this.]

3. Johnson asserted that the newly passed CAFE standards (35mpg) are tougher than California's standards, which he said would amount to 33.5mpg.

The reason automakers have lobbied the White House so hard to get this decision is that California's standards are tougher than the new federal standards. The 33.5mpg number appears to have been pulled out of Johnson's rear. [UPDATE: Apparently, Cali's standards would reach 33.5mpg by 2016, while the federal standards would reach 35mpg by 2020. Also, Cali's standards cover all emissions related to use of all vehicles, while the fed standards only concern fuel economy. [UPDATE UPDATE: Calif. officials dispute Johnson's number.]] Regardless, the Calif. standards were always meant to be ramped steadily up over time, in keeping with their climate change action plan (the current standards go through about 2016). Make no mistake: this is a gift to automakers.

4. Johnson said he was denying the waiver on the basis of section 209 of the Clean Air Act. He said this request for a waiver was "distinct from all prior requests," in that the previous requests regarded local pollutants, and GHGs are global pollutants. Thus, California does not meet the "compelling and extraordinary conditions" called for by the Act.

This flies in the face of the clear language of the CAA and the just-passed energy bill, both of which explicitly reserve for California the right to exceed federal fuel economy standards. It also directly contradicts rulings in several recent court cases. Johnson's legal reasoning has no support outside of Bush administration political appointees.

In short, as Johnson all but admitted, this decision was made based on a "policy preference" of the White House -- exactly what was prohibited by the Supreme Court's ruling in Mass. v. EPA.

Schwarzenegger and state Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. are preparing an immediate lawsuit. Sen. Barbara Boxer said she is "prepared to take all measures to overturn this harmful decision" via legislation. Waxman says his Oversight Committee will immediately launch an investigation into how the decision was made.

There's no way this decision will stand for long. It's just another petty act of truculent defiance from an executive branch that history has left behind. Quite a legacy.

For story: Johnson's nuts
15 Comments | Post a Comment

I am pissed

I have worked with EPA and California for decades and this does not sound like the people the I have been talking to and dealing with. It is an outrage. Johnson, like the Medieval dick-weed before him, Levitt, need to be hung by the balls and fed Ex-Lax.

Onward through the fog

by Sam Wells at 5:21 PM on 19 Dec 2007

EPA

I am literally shocked by how outrageous and disgusting this decision is. At what point do we conclude that our Constitution and our civil rights are truly at risk? This EPA decision is defying the courts and the will of the people.

I'm pleased that after 30 years this country finally got the gumption to improve the CAFE standards. But they fall far short of what California mandated.

by Fish out of water at 6:09 PM on 19 Dec 2007

Shameful, pernicious, duplicitous leadership......

Predictable, woefully inadequate, jaded, pitiful, unconscionable leadership -- whose failure to respond ably to the requirements of practical biophysical reality of the relatively small planet God has blessed us to inhabit and, I suppose, not to overwhelm -- could have profound adverse implications for the future of our children, for biodiversity and the environment, for Earth as a fit place for human habitation and life as we know it.

All this done by a tiny group of leading elders, their benefactors and minions in my not-so-great generation....... and for what: for the sake of more money, money, money, money and more power and many privileges to conspicuously consume Earth's limited resources now, come what may for our children and coming generations.

Steven Earl Salmony, Ph.D., M.P.A.
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/

by stevenearlsalmony at 6:20 PM on 19 Dec 2007

I'm not surprised

The EPA Versus the Department of Transportation on FindLaw:

"To be sure, the language of Section 209 of the Clean Air Act seems to give EPA no discretion to deny such a waiver, where the state establishes its entitlement to one. But a recalcitrant EPA can hold up a waiver through extended hearings, study, and general foot-dragging, so the prospect that the current EPA actually would grant California (and thus also Vermont) its waiver before President Bush leaves office, seems remote."
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20071217.html#continue

More info on Warming Law
http://warminglaw.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/12/looking-a ...

by josullivan58 at 7:03 PM on 19 Dec 2007

Sam Wells is right

There is no way on God's green earth that this decision could have anything to do with the will of EPA staff (with the possible exception of one or two highly-placed Administration butt-kissers).

Besides, Steven Johnson has shown himself over and over to be a happy doormat for the White House, so long as they pat him on the head and make him feel important every once in a while.

This I know firsthand.

by GreenMom at 7:44 PM on 19 Dec 2007

Environmental PROTECTION

Agency.

You know, just in case you guys forgot what you're supposed to be doing.

I wish I could make an intelligent comment, but my brain seems to be awash in four-letter words.

by kmp at 7:46 PM on 19 Dec 2007

Dear KMP:

EPA staff have not forgotten. Please don't confuse career staff with the Administration-appointed bosses.

The staff will long outlast those guys, and have been laboring under the radar for 7 years now.

by GreenMom at 8:00 PM on 19 Dec 2007

Some practical advice, please

I am as outraged as the rest of you. Is there anything we can do? Obviously contact our senators and congresspeople to have them support the House and Senate Oversight committees and encourage them to expose how this "decision" was made. Anything else?

by rraimo at 5:54 AM on 20 Dec 2007

EPA

GreenMom - and your green sisters, brothers and fathers who are at EPA. Is that the answer - waiting it out for another 12 months, plus the transition time? Perhaps you in your cubicles have more power than you think. . . There's incredible power in collective action - far more than another street rally or the rest of us flogging each other to "write your senator and congressman." As if.

So California and Massachusetts and others will sue and they will win because based on prior EPA waivers for California there is no legal justification for denying this waiver - but at what cost to tax payers. And of course that means more delay. And more inefficient cars and trucks get built and sold that will then be on the roads, polluting for years to come. Remember, California's rule - and all the other states along with California - was scheduled to become effective next fall, with the 2009 model year. EPA's rules don't go into effect until 2012? That is not acceptable. There is simply no more time to waste.

No, I think its time for direct action. We need the courage of our convictions.

by Fish out of water at 7:29 AM on 20 Dec 2007
[ Parent ]

"There's no way this decision...

will stand for long."

Would you care to expand on that? How do you expect the counter-suits to play out, and more importantly, how long will it take?

by eriqa at 9:32 AM on 20 Dec 2007

Eriqa,

I shouldn't have said that. I don't think it will stand, but the lawsuits will no doubt take quite a bit of time to play out. By the time they're over, we'll probably have a new president and a new head of EPA and the issue will be moot anyway. This was all about pushing things off until Bush is out of office -- that seems to be his sole goal now.

grist.org

by David Roberts at 9:58 AM on 20 Dec 2007

Ancient chinese secret

The ancient chinese bureaucracy used civil service exams to get the best people into government (according to a history channel presentation).

Those exams were gamed. Incompetents filled the bureaucracy and the empire was soon over run by its enemies.

The bushies appoint monkey wrenchers into head positions of the bureaucrcy, an even more effective tactic to destroy government. It's a self fullfilling raygun revolution prophecy, government can do nothing right.

Therefore, the best policy is to turn everything over to contractors.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 10:12 AM on 20 Dec 2007

We must use the power we have as consumers!

We do not have a government that wants to protect us and our children so we need to take it upon ourselves to put it right.
I don't do much car shopping - and when I do it is a very used model I am looking for to fit my budget - but for those of us who do, we need to use our power as consumers to enforce our own standards.
Simply do not buy the cars that don't meet our standards and leave the others in the showrooms. Big automakers will get the message soon enough.

Until auto and oil company stockholders see the results of such government decisions in their personal bottom lines we won't see different government policies.

And we can't wait for 2016 to react. Even I will need a cleaner car that I can afford before then. I just hope it is not an old hybrid with a battery about to go bad when I get it.

by btancig at 11:16 AM on 20 Dec 2007

Hey Fish out of water:

I'm not going to expound on the idea of thousands of career scientists, engineers, and policy geeks etc. at EPA rising up against the Administration in the streets -- it'd be cool, but get real. Let me count the reasons it won't happen.

Plus a lot of great groundwork has gotten done at EPA -- real work hasn't ground to a halt just because the Administration is screwing around on the big ticket policy stuff.

And hey, many of us are quite politically active in our non-work lives, around just these issues in which we have expertise, and around many other issues too, and at the state and local level as well.

by GreenMom at 4:07 PM on 20 Dec 2007

EPA Administrator Johnson is right

David Roberts said,

The 'patchwork' line is completely disingenuous. There aren't multiple standards in different states. There's one: California's standard, which other states can choose by law to adopt, or not. Seventeen states, representing over half the U.S. population, have pledged to adopt it.

The proposed California greenhouse gas standard is only one of the California auto emissions standards. The California auto emissions standards are an all-or-nothing package deal -- other states can't pick and choose which of the California standards they are going to adopt. Also, a state may have to be an air-quality non-attainment state to adopt the California standards -- I don't know.

4. Johnson said he was denying the waiver on the basis of section 209 of the Clean Air Act. He said this request for a waiver was "distinct from all prior requests," in that the previous requests regarded local pollutants, and GHGs are global pollutants. Thus, California does not meet the "compelling and extraordinary conditions" called for by the Act.

IMO Johnson is right. California cannot significantly affect climate change in California by regulating greenhouse gas emissions in California.

This flies in the face of the clear language of the CAA and the just-passed energy bill, both of which explicitly reserve for California the right to exceed federal fuel economy standards.

I have been following this issue for a long time, and I am not aware of any such language in the CAA and the just-passed energy bill. Please quote your sources.

by LarryFarma at 5:52 AM on 26 Dec 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.