In February 2003, Michigan, Vermont, and South Carolina formed a "National Medicaid Pooling Initiative" for prescription drugs, to cut their Medicaid program costs.

As of last December,ten states were members of the NMPI buying pool: Alaska, Hawaii, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York and Tennessee.

The NMPI model could serve as a model for using state and local government buying clout instead of regulations to achieve the same end.

California and the other states waiting to adopt the California standards could do an end run by defining the performance requirements for all vehicles purchased by the state governments and by all county and municipal governments who buy off state contracts. Mileage and emission standards could be included either directly or by defining other criteria that could not be met unless mileage and emission standards were met at the same time.

They would not be telling automobile manufacturers who did not meet the standards that they could not sell what they wanted, only that no state or local government, with an enormous aggregate buying power, would ever buy from them.

For dealers who depend heavily on fleet sales to state and local government, this could be a very big, bad deal. Or, if they were selling compliant vehicles, a very good deal.

I would be interested in what environmental law experts think about this, and how the EPA or another Bush League agency could fight it.

But that would be politically unpopular at home. So it is just easier to blame George Bush. My fear is that new California auto specs will raise the price of cars for everyone.  

Mass v. EPA was a political decision which should have been resolved by Congress not the courts. If the Clean Air Act is unclear on regulating CO2, then let elected officials resolve it, not 5 justices.  

Anyway, if California wants to pass goofy regulations that impact just their own citizens, I could care less.  Its when Californians and the other 16 states want to impose their will on the rest of the country that I take exception.

The states issue titles and licenses to vehicles. IF they don't like inefficient vehicles then just don't issue licenses or limit the number available. They don't need the Supreme Court or the EPA to do this, but it does make for a nice sideshow.

Of course, this all makes political sense: most of the CA+16 group voted Democratic in last Presidential election, and most likely change next time, but maybe the EPA decision helps shake loose Michigan for example.

-John Mashey

As with Rove, these bushco throwbacks to Nixonian "ratfucking" (Nixon's word for smearing opponents in elections as commies), are extremely proud of their total lack of integrity.  It's a basic character flaw.  

Cheney is head of the rat pack.  Trained under Nixon himself, as did Rummi.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

We have seen this tactic used again and again to stifle real accountability: first in the call for "national" food labeling laws, then for a "national" policy on GMO's, and now for "national" standard for air pollution.

The EPA is clearly making decisions based on politics, not science, and this is not the first time groups have sued the EPA to make the do their job.

This goes beyond partisanship in politics, though political partisanship is at the core of the problem.  There are Republicans (e.g. Martha Marks of Republican for Environmental Protection who are as adamantly opposed to the politicization of the EPA as are the Greens. What is lacking is the political will to change the system, though I would guess that Waxman will make a good start.


Wes Rolley CoChair - EcoAction Committee Green Party US

"It seems to me that if California and the other states want to do something about gas mileage, they could pass legislation to limit or prohibit certain low mileage vehicles. They could pass their own gas guzzler tax or subsidize more fuel efficient cars. They didn't need to run off to the Supremes to get this done."

The state's have been trying to do this, but they are being stopped by the Bush administration and their allies in the auto industry. They have gone to court over this, but not the supreme court.

"Mass v. EPA was a political decision which should have been resolved by Congress not the courts. If the Clean Air Act is unclear on regulating CO2, then let elected officials resolve it, not 5 justices"

No it wasn't. The Clean Air Act has provisions that allow for to new pollutants to be added to those already regulated. Several states and environmental groups petitioned the EPA to add greenhouse gases to this list, but the EPA refused. The EPA never argued that greenhouse gases were not a pollutant and the Clean Air Act provisions would not allow the EPA to regulate them. The EPA said that they would not for other reasons, but these reasons violated the law. Because the EPA was breaking the law the states and environmental groups sued.

Mass v. EPA was a 5-4 decision, but the dissent was based on the right of the states and environmental group to challenge the EPA's unlawful act in the courts.

"They don't need the Supreme Court or the EPA to do this, but it does make for a nice sideshow."

The Bush administration is using the authority of the EPA to block the states and the states are going to the courts to challenge the Bush administration.

"Anyway, if California wants to pass goofy regulations that impact just their own citizens, I could care less.  Its when Californians and the other 16 states want to impose their will on the rest of the country that I take exception."

California is not seeking to impose its will on the rest of the country. California sought to implement stricter emissions standards through the legal waiver process and apply those standards within its own borders. 16 states modeled similar regulations on the CA standard. CA has done this dozens of times before with the EPA's consent.

This same post continued:

"The states issue titles and licenses to vehicles. IF they don't like inefficient vehicles then just don't issue licenses or limit the number available. They don't need the Supreme Court or the EPA to do this, but it does make for a nice sideshow."

This method would step perilously close to infringing on Congressional Article 1 interstate commerce regulatory powers. Since the feds already regulate emissions--or permit states to regulate emissions through its Clean Air Act § 209 waiver process--if California attempted to regulate emissions standards through the back door, as you suggest, I suspect CA would stand on far more tenuous legal grounds in federal court. The current balance on the Supreme Court likely would scrutinize such a tactic very closely if challenged by the auto industry. At any rate, I am sure CA has considered this tactic, it is fairly obvious, after all.

And, another post reads:

"California and the other states waiting to adopt the California standards could do an end run by defining the performance requirements for all vehicles purchased by the state governments and by all county and municipal governments who buy off state contracts."

Municipalities and other local governments can certainly set their own purchasing standards, but likely would pay a higher price per vehicle to do so. On the other hand, forcing local governments to purchase under state standards is a suspect idea. This appears to be an inequitable concept. In reality, the idea falls far short of the state's goals of positively impacting the state's emissions. The way CA is approaching the problem will be the most successful and have the broadest impact on emissions and, ultimately, climate change.